Skip to main content
2:00 pm
american farmers and ranchers all over the world. as these barriers are constructed, we have to tear them down. those are all risks that we face in agriculture today, that are all man-made. these are resolved by congress and the international community, following science and rules. there are, however, risks we cannot control. joe talked about the drought. cannot control. joe talked about the drought. following the consequences of the drought last year, the president directed us to create a drought task force, made up of all federal agencies, to try to mitigate the impacts and effects of drought. that led us to begin thinking at usda about steps we can take to help producers during a difficult time. we took a series of steps to try to mitigate the consequences.
2:01 pm
we opened up crp land, and changed premium payments, things of that nation -- that nature. it also got us thinking -- were there other steps, other things we should be doing, to provide help and assistance? it occurred to us perhaps we should be focused more acutely on the need to encourage multi- cropping through the united states, in order for us to do a better job of conservation, to create biomass that could be a revenue source, and to potentially allow us to conserve precious water resources, which would in turn allow us to get through these drought circumstances in a more favorable circumstance. we have begun a process of looking at ways in which we could provide assistance. you will be fortunate to hear from a fellow by the name of david brant, who has a no till
2:02 pm
nutrient management system he has put in place since the 1970s, that involves multi- cropping. it saves about $100 an acre on nitrogen. it has increased its corn yield seven to 10 bushels an acre. that is something that ought to get everyone's attention. at usda, we ought to be looking at ways we could reduce the man- made barriers to multi- cropping, so that that could be another strategy for managing risk, recognizing there are different types of multi- cropping, whether it is double crops, or an integrated livestock arrangement, or for a street. -- agri-forestry.
2:03 pm
we will spend time better looking at crop insurance programs that discourage multi- cropping, looking at the effect on the yield of primary crops, and the supply chain and delivery system, so we can encourage more of this activity. we will use our grant money to provide some financial assistance. we intend to develop an atlas that will provide producers a lot of information about what currently is working in multi- cropping arrangements around the country. there are great examples. we will provide information on the steps to reduce those barriers that we have created within usda. and we hope that we will do a better job of improving our communication about the conservation benefits that will come from multi-cropping, and give us yet another tool to deal with a changing
2:04 pm
agriculture, and managing the risk of weather. as we started thinking about multi-cropping, it occurred to us we have a diverse agriculture in this country. there are different production systems that people want to use. some folks might want to use ge technology. some might want to go a conventional way. some people might want to be organic reducers. it is important for us to recognize and to respect all production processes, and to make sure everybody has the opportunity to choose the type of operation that is best for their family and themselves. that is why we put together a group of folks, and we challenge them to think about how we could create a system and support in this country, were different production processes could coexist in the same geographic area, recognizing that this is a tough question, and that there are passions on
2:05 pm
all sides of this issue. we put 22 people in a room for about a year and a half. they have great leadership from russell redding. these folks worked really hard to come to a set of recommendations and conclusions. they basically modeled what we ought to be doing in this town more frequently, which is coming together and figuring out where the common ground is, where the moderate middle is. they came up with a series of recommendations through what we
2:06 pm
call the ac 21 committee. we are posting on our website the next steps in that process, so we can tell those 22 folks who worked hard that we are following their recommendations. allan't help producers of types that there are ways we can provide help and reduce the risks that may be associated with different production processes trying to live in the same space. you are going to engage in research and look at ways in which we can create measures to strengthen this notion of coexistence. we need to know how often there may be circumstances where crops are compromised as a result of activities in other areas. we are going to do case studies, and will better understand from those case studies exactly what the challenges and barriers are to this notion of coexistence. we hope to be able to develop best practices, to be able to provide information, so as folks are looking at coexistence plans or stewardship efforts, they will know precisely what works best. we are going to create a competitive grant. that grant will basically fund a conference that will be held this year. we will bring experts in to discuss information about gene flow, so we have a better understanding of precisely what happens, and can mitigate the
2:07 pm
risk that could be damaging to someone else's crop. we will continue to look at ways in which we can indemnify or compensate those who may have suffered an economic loss. we are going to have nas review its data to have a better idea of how to price organic crops. there is a premium associated. they are, in a sense, a different commodity. some of the normal practices, normal surveying techniques, may not work quite as well for organics as they do for conventional agriculture. that will give us enough information to do a better job in terms of how to set up insurance policies and programs for these organic crops. and we will focus on seed quality. this spring, we will launch for the first time the national genetic advisory council. we will be tasking that counsel with looking at how we can
2:08 pm
evaluate the availability of non-ge seed for producers who might be working and producing in ge-sensitive markets. we will look at monitoring, maintaining the purity of publicly-held germ classes, because there is concern about that. as will mitigate the risk associated when folks want to do things a little bit differently, in the same general space. it is part of managing risk. the long-term risk we will face, with a changing climate -- i will conclude with this. there is no question that the climate is changing. we recently furnished to assessments from usda on the impact of changing climates on agriculture and forestry.
2:09 pm
the conclusions were pretty obvious. higher temperatures lead to more intense weather patterns. more intense weather patterns lead to greater stress for crops and livestock. and increase tree mortality. we at usda have a responsibility to figure out ways in which we can mitigate the risks of something we really cannot control. when it happens, we cannot control when a drought occurs. we cannot control when a horrible tornado hits, or when flooding occurs. but we can take steps to mitigate the impacts and effects of that. here is what we have done, and here is what we are going to do. we released this year the first usda climate change adaptation plan, and we are outlining practical steps that can be taken right now to reduce this risk. we are expanding forecasting, so we have that her models to
2:10 pm
give people a better sense of what happens with intense weather patterns, which are a risk we need to control. we are going to win sent and increase our in soil health management, creating systems for farmers and ranchers they might be interested in. we are going to have rma work with his partners to create a web portal that will provide information on climate and weather. in turn, we will have enhanced ability to adjust losses more quickly and accurately. we have challenged the forest service to begin incorporating practical applications for mitigation and adaptation strategies for our planning and management system work. the next steps require developing a roadmap. we want to provide practical advice to our farmers and ranchers, in ways in which they can reduce risk through the use of their property.
2:11 pm
we want to provide better support materials, so that they can create techniques and technologies that will allow them to mitigate the impact. we saw this with the drought. it is amazing. despite the drought, we still had a relatively large corn crop, even the extent and severity of the drought last year. the reason is the technology and the techniques our farmers used. we need to better support climate change research. we need to make sure we have resources going into this research, so we can provide you with the information that allows you to manage this risk. we need to improve our outreach and extension, so the outreach we have, and our ability to provide help and assistance, is disseminated more widely. and we will be able to do this by organizing this effort, perhaps, around regional hubs, where we will recognize the differences of climates and the
2:12 pm
differences that climate has on various crops that are grown in different parts of the united states. why is this important? it is obvious. rural america as a result of most of the farming and ranching and production taking place there is the number one place for food production in this country. this makes us a food-secure nation. it is the place for the water that is consumed everywhere. it is the number one place for the production of energy of
2:13 pm
whatever source, will or natural gas or renewable. it is the source of a disproportionate number of those who serve us admirably in our military. it is an important place in america. and the people who are working hard in that important place require us to do everything we can to allow them to continue to help make us a more secure and stronger nation. they will be able to deal with weather-related risk. they have historically. what they need is for us to act, to cooperate, to agree, to compromise, to get through the process so we are not faced with budget uncertainty, that we do
2:14 pm
have a five-year farm program that provides a strong safety net and encourages greater economic growth. that we can continue to knock down trade barriers come that we resolve the farm labor issue with a decent immigration law. that is what they deserve. we at usda will do everything we can to help make that happen. but we need you to be engaged in this process. we beat you to encourage those in congress to help us help you will want to continue to make agriculture cool. we want to be inspired by the fact that agriculture is the answer to the moral dilemma of our time, how we feed and ever-increasing world population as resources become scarce. it is agriculture in rural parts of our country and around the
2:15 pm
world that will provide the adaptation and mitigation strategies to sequester carbon and to control and mitigate the impact of climate change. it is agriculture and the rural parts of our country that will provide a new energy future for this country, and is agriculture that will spur a new american economy that is focused again on making and innovating and growing and manufacturing and exporting. the long-term security and absolutely dependent on managing these risks we have identified today. it is that important for this country. you all can help. one man who understands this better than most is tom daschle. i can say a lot of things about tom daschle. i can talk about his military career in the air force. i can talk about his service in
2:16 pm
the house of representatives and his extraordinary leadership in the senate. the only person to serve as a majority and minority leader. i have said a lot about this man in terms of what his counterparts thought of him. i prefer to talk about tom daschle the father and grandfather. i think you can tell the measure of a man or a woman by the children. tom has got three great kids. i had the pleasure of knowing all of them. his daughter is an award- winning journalist. his son nathan is a social entrepreneur. his daughter lindsay, my favorite -- he cannot say that -- works at usda. she did an extraordinary job of
2:17 pm
helping to lead a first ever effort called the rural council when president obama established a council of all federal agencies that is involved in rural america. lindsay basically led that effort. she left usda because she had a call to help kids in trouble. she is pursuing work in social work. three great kids, four great- grandchildren. that says a lot about tom daschle. he will share with you today his insights. i saw him the other day at a lunch in a restaurant in washington, d.c. what impressed me the most was that virtually no one entered that restaurant without stopping at his table. we are fortunate to have them here today. ladies and gentlemen, tom daschle. [applause]
2:18 pm
>> thank you. it is so nice to be with all of you and be here this morning. only at a conference can you hear four speakers by 9 a.m. tom gave an eloquent and powerful analysis of the risks we face in agriculture, man- made and natural. it is a reminder yet again of the extraordinary leadership that we have in our agriculture today. i consider him a very dear friend. an unparalleled public servant. someone that i admire for so many reasons, but in particular because of his mentorship of
2:19 pm
that young daughter of mine, lindsay. i thank him for all he does not only for my family, but for all of us in each and every day. i also want to thank to other people for their thoughtful presentations today. talk about dedicated servants with selfless determination. you have freedom right at this table. -- you have three of them are right at this table, andi'm honored to be part of this program. [applause] being here, i'm reminded of an open door meeting that i had in a rural part of south dakota. several years ago, in small towns, we do not have choice
2:20 pm
when it comes to where we meet. it is often times in the local café/bar. i used to hold public meetings. i know tom has done them in iowa for many years. and this particular open-door meeting, someone interrupted me. i have a question! he had been at the bar for most of the day. i could tell that by the way he started his question. tell me, tom daschle, what is the difference between a democrat and a republican? sir, when you are sober, i will give you an answer to that question. he said, when i'm sober, i do [laughter] the truth is, we should care. agriculture is not republican or democratic. it is not partisan at all. rather than divide us, it should unite us.
2:21 pm
as i look over this crowd, i see unity among all of you. we have a special term in dakota -- we just called them issues. i was very fortunate to spend 30 years on these issues in congress. i've attempted to put rural america's agenda on the nationalsince i left the senate, i'm reminded of agricultural issues. food security issues. these cannot stop it is that the prairie's edge. these are national issues. they are global issues. today farming and food security are beginning to receive the attention that they deserve. president obama has launched a
2:22 pm
new alliance for food security and nutrition with the goal of raising 50 million people out of poverty in the next decade alone. city kids are going back to work. farmers are having their own online dating service. the most talked about super bowl commercial, courtesy of the late harvey, was a heartwarming tribute to the american farmer. what is that kenny chesney song? "she thinks my tractor is sexy"? there is some truth to that. agricultural issues are, if not sexy, increasingly important. i'm glad to be here.
2:23 pm
it is appropriate that we are here today. it turns out that it was february 21, 1865 -- 148 years ago today, that the u.s. patent office issued a patent. i will not give you a pop quiz. it was labeled john deere plow. the implement sketched out could have easily been labeled one of the most important inventions in history. they called it the plow that broke the plains, and it did. by replacing cast iron with smooth innovation, it opened up swaths of land for cultivation. it made it possible for my hometown to exist.
2:24 pm
beforehand, tilling an acre took a full 24 hours. afterward, as little as five. every toil ended another assumption of what the land could produce. it is not just the start of agricultural success, but of national success. this kind of game changing innovation has enabled us to leap ahead and increase harvest and feed the whole world. sometimes these innovations come from the most advanced science. other times they are simple steps and ideas that come from looking at and listening closely to the problem. all of them can break down barriers to food security.
2:25 pm
it can allow us to allow new paths of progress. we need those new pathways forward. take a look at a few recent headlines. "drought and mississippi impacts everything from livestock to deer." -- to american beer." "food shortages could force the world into vegetarians." "patent endings raises new biotech issues." "global crop production shows signs of stagnant." -- of stagnating." "could climate change be al qaeda's best friend in africa?" i could go on.
2:26 pm
when i think of the factors that make up the perfect storm, i'm reminded of what mark twain reportedly observed. anymore. i wish twain was right. we need to do more land that we still have. every year 7 billion of us on earth use the equivalent of a planet and a half of resources. 870 million people worldwide every day go to bed hungry.
2:27 pm
by the year 2050, there will be feed, many in the developing world. that is not sustainable. to keep up with the rising demand, we have to increase global food production 70% by this century. -- by mid century. as assistant secretary of state josé fernandez says, that is producing as much food in the next 50 years as we produce in the last 1000. -- as we produced in the last 10,000. think about that for a minute. between now and the time my grandkids are old enough to attend usda conferences on their own, we will have had to grown as much food as we did as the dawn of recorded history. and we will have to do it without more land.
2:28 pm
compounding the problem is effects of the changing climate. anyone who works close to the land can plainly see -- what is up with the weather? that is a fair question. last year was the hottest on record in the u.s. with massive summer droughts. more than half of u.s. counties were primary national disaster areas. we witnessed extreme flooding throughout asia and devastating droughts in the horn of africa. in it europe,deep freezes have given way to destructive fires. food organizations are warning of a huge locusts in egypt. talk about disasters of biblical proportions.
2:29 pm
you cannot make this stuff up. as the secretary has shared with us,these natural disasters -- the government is facing a brutal fiscal crunch. some might believe that warmer temperatures may benefit agriculture, but it does not look that way in the long run. crop yields are down. for every degree increase -- yields decrease by an average of 5%. climate change is projected to degrade up to 1/5 of the developing world. this is a regrettable oversight. we are not invested enough to improve agriculture
2:30 pm
productivity. right when a growing population and a warming climate requires to do more with less. here at home, as the secretary just said, the shortsighted to fiscal policy are asking us to slash land grants. we are spending less on agricultural r&d in low income countries. as an 2008, 3.5 alien dollars are agricultural investments in the developing world are less than half -- $3.5 million of agricultural investments in the developing world are less than half. while there is evidence of increasing investment in the agricultural sector, especially from the private sector, there remains a $79 billion defense annually between what we invest
2:31 pm
in low-and middle-income countries and what they need to feed their people. this level of a snap -- of investment will not cut it in places like africa. even while the population is expected to triple by the end of this century. as i said it is a perfect storm, of pitfalls and of challenges. if you look closely at your programs, you will see my name listed as thomas daschle, not thomas malthus. i am something of an optimist. anyone who serves three decades in political life and lives to tell about it has to be an optimist. weathering the perfect storm is possible if only we have the wisdom and the willpower to
2:32 pm
rethink our approach. what do i mean by that? i know a lot of you are very -amiliar with the four h's of h 4. these are what i consider this involvementglobal and engagement -- defense, diplomacy, democracy, development. and food security is essentials to each and every one of those four d's. consider the first of these factors, which is the state of our national defense. our national security is to say in our luggage extent contingent on our food security. hunter and cover their --
2:33 pm
hunter and party threaten global security around the globe today. if not before, but this was made clear in 2007 and 2008, as a changing climate contributed to rising food prices which led to riots and around the world, food and water scarcity are becoming a leading cause of global instability. ag uses 70% of the world's water. while we can agree that feeding people is a great way to use those resources, coming together to resolve our water and food scarcity will be central to a strong national defense. it is not just food and water security. agriculture's overall role in national defense is playing a critical role in our energy
2:34 pm
security as well. last week's secretary bill psych publicly highlighted the importance of biofuels and strengthening our and -- energy independence, and the investments usda has made in advance biofuels. leon panetta was a vocal advocate for diversifying our military posture energy resources. fuel draws, and chuck hagel is confirmed next week. for these reasons, i have long been a supporter of renewable fuels, and encourage the development of an industry import both to and our national security as well as to our farm economy. whether we are talking food or water or energy security, let me
2:35 pm
put it this way -- in the future, can mean fewer soldiers in the field. at the same time, as important as our defense capabilities are, we need to rebalance toward the other three d's. u.s. today spends more on defense today than on diplomacy, democracy, and development all put together. meanwhile, in the past year china has more than doubled its investment in developing new agricultural technologies. those are the kinds of fort decided policies that are enabling china to emerge as a world power and in which we frankly need to get back to. as we shift our focus and our resources towards smarter, more constructive forms of international interaction, it is critical that feed security
2:36 pm
remained at the center of shading a secure world. when it comes to diplomacy, that means forging stronger public, private, and government-to- government relations, like usaid's promised to feed the future initiative, and focus on local solutions to enable countries to take ownership of their own allotment -- development. it means ensuring 500 million farmers can participate meaningfully in democratic and governing their own countries. these farmers often have no voice in their future. more specifically, it means empowering women who represent 43% of small holders and are the
2:37 pm
majority of farmers now and over 30 countries. land rights and ownership can help women realize their potential, which benefits families, communities, and these countries themselves. lastly, building a secure internet-connected global take a deep commitment to the final d, development, which has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves. this means traditional country and governmental commitments, but also private sector development that stimulate entrepreneurship and empowers individuals. there is a direct connection between the country's economic success and its success in advancing the goals of the first three d's. agriculture to vomit is the critical first step towards a
2:38 pm
national economic development program. moving from substance to surplus enables farmers to feed their families and communities, connecting to emerging markets, and proving livelihoods, and strengthening these local economies. growing economies lead to what private sector investments, which only further allows for the economic growth and development to which we all aspire. those rising economies abroad translate into expanded markets for american exports and increased production for american farms. because this issue is of fundamental to the well-being of the world, i would like to spend my remaining time talking about what it will take to achieve these to the limit advances in share the benefits. here is how i view the challenges and opportunities of global development today. recently i came across a chart
2:39 pm
that brilliantly illustrates the global imperative to promote agricultural development and difficulties we face. it consists of two side-by-side pie charts which is appropriate, because the graphic is about food. one pie chart shows the distribution of arable land and around the world. the other shows the distribution of the world's population. many of the corresponding pipe wedges are wildly disproportionate. east asian and pacific contain 14% of the world's parable land, but must support 31% of the globe's population. the ratios are similarly on equal when it comes to the dish addition of calories, which rich nations experience over nutrition and poor ones under
2:40 pm
nutrition. connecting people to food will only become more difficult as roughly 70% of the global population migrates to cities by 2015, further away from the food where the food is grown, requiring new ways to prevent waste, and enhanced nutrition. here is another illustration. one just stick out from all the statistics i have turned out so far. if there is one thing i hope you will remember from my remarks this morning and beat this -- i still -- that is breathtaking to say this -- a full 30ato 50% of the food produced in the world rots or goes unheeded. that is one of the most amazing -- amazing statistics i will ever articulate. up to half of our total global
2:41 pm
output. except for waste being the problem and the developing world, the problem in developing countries is getting the goods to market. roughly 85% of the food produced never crosses international borders. given the unequal distribution of people in arable land, that is a major obstacle to feeding the world. when it comes down to is we need to produce more higher-quality, more nutritious food, and we need to become better at moving at and we need to do a lot more of it sustainably. the solution to those problems broadly speaking is a word that all four of us have mentioned in various ways as we have spoken this morning. that single word is innovation. through science-based
2:42 pm
technologies we can innovate to have a severe weather conditions, diminishing resources, post harvest loss, nutritionally insufficient crops, the benefits of science and innovation and food and agriculture and its many forms are seeing each and every single day. we can connect rural farmers to extension workers and best practices with the use of mobile technology, and credit -- improving crop yields. we can enhance the nutritional content of foods and ingredients solution that we reduced fat, salt, and sugar content. management's practices can enable farmers to reduce water wastage. thanks to the great work of farmers, they're using solutions such as gps technology and using fewer inputs.
2:43 pm
innovation is not just about science. sentence innovation is about creative collaboration and partnership that provides -- sometimes innovation is about creative collaboration and partnership. the food index is a tool that measures the core indicators that drive food security, affordability, availability, polly, and safety -- quality, and safety across countries. the index can tell us why some countries are more prone to food insecurities than others. innovation also comes in simple forms that result from simply
2:44 pm
new perspectives. linda gates recently took during an npr interview -- joked during an npr interview. sweaty socks as a mosquito repellent. it turned out to be a good idea. similar method is being used. feeding an unequal world with a growing population and shrinking resources will require big ideas, both big and small. we need to pay attention to innovation and photosynthesis as they do in photo sharing. if they want u.s. to be the hub of this innovation, a need to do much more to support agricultural development. we'll need serious public and
2:45 pm
private investment in research and new technologies. despite wasting all of that food, perhaps only 5% in research today those to studying postharvest loss prevention. we cannot invest in r&d and hope that problems will just sell themselves. solve themselves. there are three ways that we can do a better job to fertilize the fields, so to speak. those three leg supporting this tripod of innovation and collaboration and education and regulation. let's start with collaboration. if we have any hope of overcoming the difficulties of distance and drought and disease, we must reject the cylo stakeholders and build enduring readerships with
2:46 pm
productivity. let's leave the cylos. -- the silols for grain. that means strengthening relationships between foundations and farm activists. it means requiring that we all come together at all levels. this cannot be a top-down exercise either. it means understanding so we incorporate local cultures in our efforts rather than working against them. we should adopt a strategy of care efforts.
2:47 pm
there is a great story about teaching chicken farmers to become ducks farmers. she says she does that for one simple reason -- ducks swim. these cross-cultural partnerships can invest in better seats and better storage and farm to market roads, bridges, and rallies. -- railways. they can expand agricultural markets. be the future program is one example of this collaboration. it is supported by the rockefellers and the gates foundation. african-led partnerships while safeguarding the environment. in one village, they sold local
2:48 pm
farmer sees an increased his crop yield 150%. another promising example is the effort for a project. it brought together african donors the private sector and research institutions and other organizations. it is a multimillion dollar effort. there is increases of vitamin a
2:49 pm
the biofortification of this crop is significant. but it has little nutritional value. it is uniquely suited to adapt to the african that is meant to withstand drought. they want to improve the diets of 500 million people. they rely on it as a dietary staple. these are the kinds of globally connected and locally grounded collaborations that we will need to succeed in the coming century. the scaling back of these efforts requires investment and resources from the global community. everyone to unleash our innovative spirit, it will take more than collaboration. we will need significant, sustained educational levels. i do not mean stem education
2:50 pm
and the like. of course, technical education is crucial. i am talking about engaging skeptics and advocating sides as a solution to a food security challenges. we need to bridge the gap between people who produce food and the folks who consume it. there is an of portugal -- unfortunate divide today between the real world and the rest of the world. we have all seen it in our lives and work. food producers are disconnected from consumers. in this country the secretary speaks about the need to bring these sides closer together, and he is absolutely right. american agricultural productivity, through the roof, as farmers bragg. they tell me about their yield per acre come out and is 10 times what it is in africa, and
2:51 pm
how they are able to do things when never even dreamed of doing. it is incredible to see. one of the drawbacks of our productivity is 1% of the american population feeds the other 99%. the consumers now are far separated from the producer, and he or she does not understand what it takes to get the product fresh to the supermarket. a few years back, lays potato chips reworked their packaging to include an image of a potato being sliced into potato chips. they did that because they conducted a survey in which one/third of respondents said lays potato chips were not made from potatoes. talk about not knowing where your food comes from. but imagine the public has become wary of our food supply.
2:52 pm
many fear the role of science and our feet, even when there is evidence of the benefits that i have just attempted to describe. the golden rice story represents a good example. developed over a decade ago, golden rice, and by air- fortified crop, to a good beta carotene which the body converts to mind -- to vitamin a, has yet to reach the marketplace. the acceptance of golden rice remains uncertain despite research that it has the potential to help millions if not tens of millions of children who suffer from vitamin a deficiency, where rice is a staple food crop. given how much we need to improve productivity to avoid a catastrophe as well to address global issues of undernutrition,
2:53 pm
have no luxury to rule out any possibilities that can in the approved food security. we need to embrace all agriculture, from small farms to the large farms that feed the world. as former presidents and peanut farmer to the carter once said, responsible biotechnology is not our enemy, hunger and starvation are. i cannot agree more. we need to educate our young people to help feed the world by owning these agricultural innovations. we should be better at integrating agriculture into classrooms, whether it is trips to local farms or math problems dealing with irrigation. we can boost the efforts of groups like the global 4-h to be our -- to teach our kids to the leaders. i recently read that
2:54 pm
agricultural since these days are not only finding jobs, they are sending out multiple offers. the farmer who will feed the world in 2025 is 13 years old today. when she grows up, to use all the tools at her disposal to do, that will depend on our ability to quiet her concerns, train her well, and the inspire her with the significance of the task at hand. while we must expand our collaboration and education efforts and innovation can only flourish within a smart, sensible science-based regulatory framework. we have to craft a 21st century system that holds true to our oldest values, while unleashing our newest advances. a recent study found that the agriculture and ag bioscience industry is a $125 billion
2:55 pm
industry, supporting 2.5 million jobs. with much more possible. it has been one of the few bright spots in this global economic downturn. scientists are improving livestock production and bioengineering rice that can survive heavy flooding. in australia they are experimenting with a we that can grow in saline soils, which would expand our arable land. it is astonishing. as is often the case, industry is innovating faster than regulatory systems can respond. it can take as long as a decade and up to $250 million to bring crop protection products to market. you can take as long as 20 years and up to $150 million to discover and commercialize a biotechnology trade like pesticide resistance.
2:56 pm
we can establish a science-based regulatory system, want one that respects health and environmental concerns and give confidence to consumers and ensure more predictable time-. when we do, innovation that we have already witnessed will just be the beginning of innovations that are yet to come. another former president and family farmer, dwight eisenhower's, commented, for me looks mighty easy when you're plow as a pencil and you are a thousand miles from a cornfield. it is true. it is pretty simple for a speaker to toss out some have eight nations, so do not take my recommendations about grain without a grain of salt. i have done a fair bit of time reflecting on these issues, and i believe if we reorient those court -- those four d's, and how
2:57 pm
we engage the world, and put food security at the center, and encourage innovation, through collaboration, education, and regulation, we are going to be moving in the right direction. that is entirely up to us, and those of us in this room and the millions of farmers and government officials and everyday citizens, a century and a half from now, when our grandchildren's children who live in the world when only a few are fed or one where billions have their daily bread. with another long winded speaker be able to point to an incredible discovery developed in a lab this year, or will orseeds ever be planted, never unleash the full power of productivity? i know which future i would like to see. i bet i know what you want, too.
2:58 pm
last year 8 der friend of mine, a mentor and champion of food for all, senator george mcgovern pass away. just a few weeks ago we learned that pope benedict xvi will be stepping down, and i remembered i and i am reminded of the words of a different pope, pope john xxiii. a long time ago he met george at the vatican. towgeorge was heading up president kennedy's program. he said, when you meet your maker, and he asks, did you feed the hungry, you can say, yes, i did. george mcgovern could say that a
2:59 pm
thousand times over. so can the millions of people whose farms and ranches and laboratories to feed our families, even when we do not always realize or acknowledge it. back -- by continuing to plow ahead, develop agricultural policies and innovate in ways big and small, so in deed and all of us. thank you very much for giving me the chance to be with you this morning. [applause] >> wow. we have had three great addresses this morning.
3:00 pm
joe gave the outlook. secretary vilsack challenged us in terms of human risks we can manage. senator daschle gave an overwhelmingly give you to american agriculture. a lot of food for thought. now the floor is yours. our panelists will answer some of your questions. do we have mics in the room? yes? no? they are in the back. so, people can line up. i will tell you what, let's take a question from one of the
3:01 pm
students in the front. ok. yeah. i think is mic is coming up. if you could bring it to this woman in the front corner. yes, thank you. go ahead. go ahead sir. >> my name is travis. i am and undergraduate student. my question is for all of you. you spoke a lot about the issues facing agriculture today.
3:02 pm
trade barriers, getting food to her needs to go. what is your opinion is the greatest challenge or opportunity that we are facing today? >> who wants to start? >> good. you will hear better answers as i get a chance to think about mine. i would say increasing productivity -- senator daschle gave a great speech on that. look at population growth and the challenges of things like climate change. it is a challenge. that is where the research money needs to go. >> i agree with joe.
3:03 pm
we know the challenges that are out there. we know of the tremendous talent that it will take to harness resources to be the challenges. -- beat thosethere lies the biggest opportunity. the innovation is potentially there and directed toward meeting the extraordinary, graphic -- meetings. that is a big part of this. >> i think the biggest challenge is figuring out ways in which what happens in rural parts of this country and around the world can be appreciated and understood and supported.
3:04 pm
in order for us to have increased productivity, we need to have young people wanting to farm. we need young people interested in the research that is important and necessary to figure out how to do more with less. we need to have leaders willing to invest resources to allow us to continue to promote goods and do the research that is needed. i fear that the biggest challenge is that the gap that exists today in this country between those who live in cities and suburbs and those who raise families in rural areas -- i think we have invented turn a corner on this -- i think we have begun to turn a corner on this. there's a beginning of that. far too often, agriculture talks to itself and fights with itself
3:05 pm
and conflicts with itself instead of conveying a positive message and strategically engaging with folks outside of agriculture so that there is a greater acceptance and understanding of the importance. the combination of our comments, i think that is the biggest challenge. >> on the opportunity side, senator daschle, it was interesting to talk about a 13-year-old who will be a farmer and 2025. you said "she." i'm interested in the changing demographics. 30% of the farm operators are women. 19% increase over the reviews census. -- previous census. they would be widows determining
3:06 pm
what is going to happen to a lot of our working lands. that is an interesting opportunity. it came into my mind when the senator used that talking about the 13-year-old. and our next question is from a young woman. >> good morning. my name is venus. i am studying nutrition. my question is for tom daschle and tom vilsack. in regard to the regulatory process and how that is limited to the new innovations that have come out and implemented, what challenges and are there any plans that have been discussed at this point?
3:07 pm
it is very cutting g on how to brimming that gap and shorten the process. it can be impactful and meaningful. >> well, we have begun the process of trying to shorten the amount of time it takes. one of the opportunities we have seized from the fiscal challenges that we face is encouraging folks at usda to look at processing improvement. we have started with a biotech regulatory process. when i came into this office, and took over 190 days to make a decision. today that is less than 365 days. we have taken roughly those days out through process improvement. the second challenge is to grin
3:08 pm
i see in with everyone -- the second challenge is synchronizing with everyone else. we want to begin the process of synchronizing with china. the way they do in china is they wait until we've completed our process before they begin their process. we need to agree where to begin. they will likely end their process when we end ours. this is a major issue. reflects the difference of sophistication of the regulatory process. rest assured we are looking at ways to streamline the process. even if we do, it is time-consuming. >> let me just say,i applaud the secretary and his
3:09 pm
team for the remarkable address they have made attending -- attempting to adjust the challenges that you have articulated. we always try to find innovation. it is an ongoing process. there is no end to that challenge. there are three p's. one is preparation. second is partnership, we have to work in aprivate and public sector environment. we need to move that process forward. the next is be pragmatic. the more pragmatic, the more prepared, the more partnered we are and the more successful we'll be. >> good morning. i'm from san diego state university.
3:10 pm
my question is for secretary vilsack. live in a rural county intel of anya -- in a rural county of california. it is the poorest county in the state. it has20% unemployment. how can we use the $5.1 billion that we produce to help the community? it is a poor county. what can we do to help those people get more? >> there are several things. it is important for us to continue to expand market opportunity so the 5 billion become 6 billion and then 7 billion. it is one of the benefit of our current efforts that every dollar we invest at usda
3:11 pm
generates about $35 of additional trade opportunity. secondly, it is important to look for ways in which we can expand markets by using products differently. whatever residue may result from that product, virtually every crop has crop residue. there is plant material. how can we convert those into far more commodities and ingredients? how to use those resources more effectively to produce chemicals? i have been in a factory were core and converted into a plastic bottle -- where corn was converted into a plastic bottle.
3:12 pm
there are amazing opportunities. third, there needs to be a commitment to the community. we have a thing called strike force where we are focusing on core areas in the country. folks are discouraged with government because they have not seen the help and assistance. with a strike force, we are beginning to develop new markets and to support and strengthen some communities. the president has proposed a real focus on providing intensive care to these communities that have high unemployment and persistent poverty. we started that with a strike
3:13 pm
force and we will see more of that. >> i have time for two more questions. >> my name is justin taylor. i met secretary vilsack in vietnam. after the past few years it seems the nation has been involved in a debate about health care. i am struck by the way that we as an agricultural community have not been a part of that conversation on a national level about the relationship between the diet and health care in the united states. i would like to hear from the leaders of the agricultural community -- how can we be better engaged in that conversation?
3:14 pm
what can we do going forward to move that conversation in our direction? >> the has been a concerted effort at usda on this issue. perhaps it has not been couched in quite the same way but there is a deep concern about the health of the nation. it is one of the reasons why we put our my plate initiative to simplify what the the plate looks like. with half of the plate with fruit and vegetables and the other half protein and so forth. we have tried to re-formulate the school lunch program to provide more fruits and vegetables, less fat and sodium and sugar. we improved tie wic -- the wic program for more healthful choices.
3:15 pm
we have done a study suggesting they are not as expensive as some people think they are. we have expanded opportunities to use snap cards at farmers' markets. we are looking at several other and as this to enhance on that -- several other initiatives to enhance on that. also dealing with the obesity and hunger issue. there are twin evils. too many of our youngsters are suffering from either one of those and they do not perform as well in school. they have chronic diseases that they take into adulthood which obviously impedes their quality of life and increases health care costs. we have a super tracker program
3:16 pm
that provides information on how to make healthy life choices. it is on our web site. i get an e-mail from them once every couple of weeks, asking whether i am doing what i said was going to do -- more fruits and vegetables. a think you will see a bit more promotion of that in the upcoming months as march is school nutrition month. that is an opportunity for us to emphasize this. we have seen a dramatic increase in community gardens in school gardens. i often comment that i appreciate the first lady get a lot of attention on her garden. we now have 1800 people's gardens throughout the united states and these are usda sponsored efforts. we have donated nearly 3 million pounds a produce to food kitchens and banks.
3:17 pm
we do have 1,800 complement regards. >> -- complimentary gardens. >> i think we all have to recognize four more collectively know we do today how much of a challenge we have in changing our health care system to a wellness' system. that means a far greater degree of attention to exercise as well as nutrition. nutrition has two component -- the combination of foods we eat but also a factor of our portions.
3:18 pm
our portions are so much bigger and we have to begin to address that part of it as well. the caloric intake for children has led to a situation where life expectancy is going down in the country. we can turn that around. but it will take a lot more education and a concerted effort around nutrition and taking personal responsibility for one's health. and a wellness system rather than the health system. >> the last question. i'm going to go way over there. >> i am from fresno, california. this question is for the entire panel. it keys off the questions of health care and food wastage. has the usda had any discussion
3:19 pm
recently about introducing some higher food grades in the areas products? -- varies products? when you look at cheese, a 40 pound block of cheddar, or will we look at cotton, there are only a number of grades but when we look at how various items are grown, there are ways to grow that produce and commodities in ways that give a better quality than the grade a standards. any discussion on that? that way we can incentivize growers to grow a premium product that will be sold as a fresh product as opposed to being on an average basis and the processing market? >> i will take a crack at that.
3:20 pm
i gained 15 minutes of fame for changing the grades of swiss cheese. everyone was making fun of me. they became the story of a government run amok. it was important because of help with the slicing machines and the swiss cheese industry. i'm still proud of that one. anyhow, these great standards are things we were in collaboration with with industry. we are always anxious for industry to come up with innovations in their standards that we helped oversee. that is a partnership that we are always working on. >> i would add, in order for partnerships to work, there has to be a constructive
3:21 pm
conversation. unfortunately, all to often folks will be encouraging conflict instead of collaboration. yesterday i had a great conversation with leaders in the organic world who were basically making the case that organics are different than general commodities. and because they're different, the systems we have that usda where we try to apply it insurance, for example, or regulatory systems, may not recognize the uniqueness of organics. and that we need to be thinking differently in creating different structures and systems. it was a very constructive conversation. folks came to the table with this is a problem for us and we are not complaining about it, we are just pointing out that this is a problem and we look like
3:22 pm
you to think about it. that is a very constructive way to approach a problem. many more of that type of discussion -- we need more of that type of discussion rather than the feeling that government is the enemy. it is not. it is a facilitator, helper. one of the great things about usda is almost all lend themselves to greater collaboration. i think there is a growing recognition that the diversity of agriculture needs to be celebrated. it is not something to be concerned about. our systems need to be put in place to promote that diversity because it will create more economic opportunity encourage more people to be excited about all types of agriculture. which in turn it will lead to more young people getting
3:23 pm
involved in agriculture. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have coffee in the foyer. please thank our wonderful panelists this morning. [applause] national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2013] >> earlier today transportation secretary spoke with reporters at the white house about the impact of the march 1 budget cuts on his department. the congressman called on members of the republican party to reach a compromise to avoid the sequester. >> i think republicans need to step up here. i served for 14 years, during those 14 years -- 12 of those i was in the majority party.
3:24 pm
speaker gingrich was the speaker and he helped the president balance the budget for those years. that meant there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires republicans stepping forward with ideas on how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. this is people cucking together, the way that other congresses have done to solve big issues. i suggest other colleagues on the republican side go see the movie "lincoln" because it shows how hard it was back then to get things done. what lincoln did, he gathered people around him the way, i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans talking to them, trying to work with them. and when that happens big things get solved.
3:25 pm
the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. >> you can watch all of his remark about sequestration tonight in prime time on c-span. coming up on 8:00 eastern on c-span two book tv has civil rights movement. that is tonight at 8:00 on the c-span networks. in about 40 minutes we'll have live remarks from the prime minister of japan on relations between his country and the united states. earlier today, he visited the white house, his first meeting with president obama since his party returned to party in december. the president's remark, live coming up at 6:00 eastern time here on c-span. until then, environmental activists laid out a list of
3:26 pm
goals that the president and congress could take up, including fuel standards for heavy-duty trucks and improving efficiency in federal buildings. this is just under 40 minutes. >> welcome back. it is a real treat for me to now welcome eileen claussen the president of the center for climate and energy solutions. i work ared for her for a decade before coming to georgetown. i've been discovering that it is rare in any event in d.c. on the topic of climate or energy, to find folks in a crowd or speakers who have not worked for eileen at some point, either at e.p.a. or the state department. not to say -- >> she's old. >> i know you know her but i'm going to say this for the
3:27 pm
broader viewing audience. he served as the assistant secretary of state and special assistant to the president and senior director for global and environmental affairs. precisely, because she's been at this for a long time and you've had previous for working with company, 15 years ago, hard to believe, 1998. not only working with progressive companies was on the international front i wanted to get your insights and share those insights with a lot of our audience that is more state and local folks that knows more of what is happening in their world. i would like to transition from the last panel which was fosed on domestic policy. specifically that president obama is urging action in the
3:28 pm
state of the union saying that if congress does nod act that he will. we listened in some of the conversation and i would love your take on what is the most realistic scenario you can paint for action and how significant is that it president obama is engaging at this level? >> first of all, it is great to see you. it is great to see everybody here. now, you ask me this question. i think it is really significant that he memmingsed climate in -- mentioned climate in both conversations. after the attempt to pass broad comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, there was no talk a climate. people talked about clean energy
3:29 pm
and people talked about clean jobs and people talked about everything else but climate. i think that was really a mistake. it sort of -- it under states the urgency on what we're trying to deal with here on the climate change. under values the opportunities of the cleern energy transition -- clean energy transition. all these things were happening, rehad record heat, drought, we had hurricane sandy. really, if you want to deal with the problem you have to talk about it. i think it was really important that he raised this, the proof in the pudding is what he does over the next few years, but just getting it on the agenda and talking a it was a big step in the right direction.
3:30 pm
>> do you want to entertain the other question about the realistic scenario for policy action? we're getting a late start because some people were running on another panel. i think that says what you think about it. >> what do i think? i think -- i think the reality is, the odds of something happening in the congress that is significant are very, very small. i know kevin did a great job in describing the clean energy standard as still being relevant. but you know it may not be off the table but it is not really on the table either. there's a lot of talk about a
3:31 pm
carbon tax but there are two problems with that. carbon tax. [laughter] so i think the odds of something happening legislatively significantly is very small. that leaves it up to the executive branch and there's a lot that have the executive branch can do. the e.p.a. has to go print on rules for new power plants. i think the e.p.a. is likely to propose, sometimes over the next four years, to go with new rules on existing power plants. that is a big deal. there are efficiency standards at d.o.e., that is not insignificant. you can deal with black carbon and that makes up a lot of difference in the short term.
3:32 pm
you can do that. the federal government has so many buildings, it is hard to count them. think about what they can do with the federal buildings, the federal fleets. look at what they do with their purchasing if they got serious like making sure they only bought thing that were good for the climate. we are going to spend a lot of time on resilience, which the last year has taught everybody. the federal government can help businesses and states and communities deal with resilience. i hope we could have a pretty aggressive program at the national level spurred on by the federal government. even in the absence of anything happening in the congress. >> that's great. i was going to say we have the right people here to have the right conversation.
3:33 pm
we have john powers who is the federal environmental executive and can talk about bringing the buildings in that you mentioned. in mentioning the role of businesses, i'm remembering, i think our first report all those years ago was credit on early action. now it is 15 years later, to some extent people are still talking about giving them credit for what they have already done. for years, the companies are arguing that part of the reason to do this is not just because of the climate is changing and we need to deal with this and they feel like it is good for their bottom line if it is done smartly. but they also want certainty if they make these investments.
3:34 pm
what is driving them at this point, given we have lost time? >> i think there are three things driving them. one is certainty. if you're going to make large investments in big capital projects it will be nice to have some idea of what is coming down the road. the other thing that you eluded to is a seat at the table. if they view themselves as good guys doing the right stuff they may be more inflewial in the outcome. there's -- influencial in the outcome. companies are starting to feel a effects of all the things we're starting to experience. so you've got flooding -- i think there was an example when there were floods in thailand. intel lost about $1 billion
3:35 pm
because they could not move their hard drives because of the floods. companies are really starting to feel what it would be like to live in a world where there is a lot of changes in weather -- unpredictable things. there's a term we sort of use, which is "inable steablet in the world." how do we plan for this? what can we do? oh, my god, we have too all of those things. that is a real driver for interest in this topics. >> that's our experience dealing with the state and local governments because they are looking for help and insight in those changes. >> they may not call it climate but i wish they would. >> sometimes in my home state, louisiana, they are putting out two reporters, they don't talk
3:36 pm
about where -- reports and they don't talk about where it is coming from. you've being at the state department and we've seen a recent change with senator john kerry becoming the new secretary of state. do you think that suggests any no policies or is that governored by the white house? >> yes. i mean, i think senator kerry really knows this issue. he has known this issue for long before rio, before 1992. that is sort of unique for the secretary of state to know it at that depth. but with that said, what is it that the state department can do? the state department negotiates treaty. you can't negotiate a treaty unless you are prepared to do what the treaty would require at
3:37 pm
home. it comes down to what you can do domestically or nationally. yes, he's going to bring a lot of enthusiasm. hillary was good also. it is not clear how he's going to organize the state department. i suggest some time ago that the most important thing is to deal with china, which you can with do separate. really, that is -- china is just a huge amitter. you can't deal with the problem without them. he might make that a focus. but really, maybe some differences, i wouldn't say a lot. >> for your time back in the state department in the clinton years, you were involved in the
3:38 pm
early efforts -- i don't know if you have any lessons on the approaches that were tried then. >> i think we made a certain number of mistakes. it was me. so what did we really learn? i think the most important lesson was that you cannot negotiate a treaty unless you're prepared to do stuff at home to meet the requirements. and i think it wasn't enough thinking on what it is that the u.s. is prepared to do domestically before it was negotiated. then, of course, we had other reasons that it was never submitted to the senate and so on and so on. i think we were great at the negotiations but it did not mean anything because we did not have a program here to get it implemented. the other lesson, again, i'm
3:39 pm
partly the problem here. we just sort of come off the protocol which was a successful international agreement. we thought we should model a climate change agreement on that, do in the same way, have it be top-down, set targets. but more mon tree yawl -- mon tri albut we followed the same model because we thought it was going to work but it really hasn't. >> so that approach didn't work and as we saw in copen hagen -- >> which isn't working either. >> that was my next question. what is your view on the status and progress and are there any bright spots? >> i mean, i think that will
3:40 pm
work because some of the big players were not a part of it. it did have some successes in europe and you have to look at this in total. the bottom up, the targets are a not that ambition and a lot of people are not going to meet them, possibly us. it is not clear that there is a path and that we will. if you just look at the international negotiations, you got to find something else. something that moves people nationally so they can actually get a framework in place that does it. so i think you have to look at where the big emitters are. i guess 70% of all the greenhouse gas globally comes from -- i think 10 countries. that's really where you have to focus. you have to keep in mind, global
3:41 pm
energy demand is probably going to increase 50% in the next 20 years or so. there's going to be a huge burst of need for electricity, transportation, everything else. this has all sorts of dreedful implications to the client if we do it the way we did it and the way we have always done it. then you can sort of say, how about the last few years? the u.s. emissions are down, i think 8%. e.u. emissions are down 9%. chinese emissions are up 30%. look at where the coal is being burned. i think in five years india is supposed to become the second largest burner of coal right behind china. the gobal picture -- if the national one isn't enough to
3:42 pm
make you cry, think globally about where we're going. so that's the crying part. you asked me for bright spots. there are actually are some, so relax. the new car standards will double fuel economy by 2025. california is moving ahead and it is a real bright spot. they are strengthening their targets, that's a bright spot. they got a plan, they have a program, south korea is thinking about instituting emissions trading. china has seven experiments around the country looking at emissions trading. you see some signs then you have
3:43 pm
these big looming clouds. we have to find a way to get through this and, god, i hope you're not looking for me for all the answers. it isn't all bleak but people better get on to it and get on to it really fast. otherwise it will get carried away and it will be really hard to reverse it. all these power plants being be built, maybe not that much coal here but we're exporting the coal. globally it is not great. it is good if that we don't burn it here but if we burn it somewhere else, what have we actually done? i'm depressing again. >> we're going to have this discussion then have to have a drink later. you keep mentioning china but i was reminded that we had joanna
3:44 pm
lewis come speak to my class recently. she talked about their ambition energy targets and the cap and trade that is doing their own thing to see what works best. it is an interesting bottom up approach and they put climate change in their five-year plan. >> but only 2% of their energy comes -- sorry. >> she was optimistic about the solar market there too. so maybe switching from china, you mentioned a couple other emitters but do you see a path? it may not be like everyone holding hands and has to jump at the same time. bush tried to take the major emitters discussions are still
3:45 pm
going on. with they bearing any fruit? >> no. i think the conversations have gotten better over the years here. i think there is a real exchange of views on technologies and things that are actually working and that is very positive. is it the way to lead to, sort after a real resolution? i don't think so. i don't think it was structured that way. it was structured in a way to talk and get to know -- but this is important, because you need to understand the national picture and what is possible and what is not. you can do that and that kind of a forum. so i think there is a value to them but i'm not sure i would say they have made a huge dent. i think we have to focus on these countries and what they are doing nationally. that means, efforts at the national level in the number of
3:46 pm
different places. you can't negotiate something until you're sure you can do it. >> of course thousand president obama, himself, with other leaders did just that. they came up with this accord -- >> otherwise it would have -- >> right. they got a deal on principle on paper. >> which is better than no deal. >> that's right. he says we're going to be able to meet those targets, which is based on the legislation at the time. but what is your prognosis about whether or not we can meet those kind of targets without congressional action? >> i think it is possible but it would require doing everything and doing it in the most ambitious way we can imagine it. in other words, yes, we can do
3:47 pm
rule for existing power plants but we need to do them in an ambitious way not just do them. i think there will be congressional push back on a lot of these things. there's all these ways to prevent these things from happening if they are too ambitious. i think it will be tough. it is not impossible. people have charted out a way to show it is possible but it is very ambitious. you're not going to have and you're not going to have in time. >> do you have a lot of thought about what other agencies can do? we know that e.p.a. is on the hook to move forward with the new stationary sources, not just power plant but refineries and other large emitters. you mentioned the pollution
3:48 pm
gases. >> right. that is something that can be done. we can use -- there's an issue on what you can do on federal land. you can do renewables on federal land. i hope all the r.p.'s that you have put in place stay in place to try to pull us back, it would be nice. if we could get them to be more ambitious -- but california can really make a difference. i think it is the 10th largest economy in the world, the state of california. they are starting to move and they can move further. you can have a bunch of things happen, not just the e.p.a. but the e.p.a. is important. there are other things important as well. i think you can make real progress. but you have to make progress on
3:49 pm
everything and it can't just be a little bit here and little bit there because then you don't get to 17%. >> the other thing the that strikes me is you really have to support the state and regional activities. i don't know if you have ideas if the federal government can at least support the leading state and regional efforts that is moving. as you said, the california emissions standards were first adopted by the other states under a different provision that the states can choose the clean car standard and now that has become the law of the land. using that kind of model, are there other scenarios where the federal government can partner with the states better or support them? >> in terms on how you look at existing power plants. a big question is, how do you deal with state programs? how do you incooperate them?
3:50 pm
what is the flexibility there? i think it is important to make sure that existing state programs or future state programs -- you could see more of this are part of the whole here. i think there are ways to do this but it will require a lot of dialogue between e.p.a. even the states to figure out the best way to do that. but, you know, why wouldn't the california program be something that could qualify. maybe some of the r.p.s.'s could be. how do you build it? with other states seeing it could be their program instead of having it imposed by the feds. that is possible if we move in that direction. how you design with it to deal with dealing with existing power plants. i hope you are gearing to do that and i hope e.p.a. is also. >> i'm going to open the floor
3:51 pm
up for questions in a few minutes. how supportive are the businesses of state policies? sometimes they talk about the patchwork in a negative way but if you look at the successes they come from the state level to begin with, at least. the federal successes are built on that. do you see them appreciating that more? >> a little bit. we're going to start a more concrete dialogue with them on how to do this in the best way and thousand get them interested in doing this. it is a patchwork quilt but all we're doing is stitching together all these little things because we're not going to see something from the top down. that is true internationally and nationally. so you better get out your quilting equipment. that is what the next few years are going to be about. >> if anybody from the audience wants to join the conversation
3:52 pm
-- >> hi. thanks for you thoughts, the states are have interesting on talking to the e.p.a. on how that might work out. my question has to do with coal and some of the environmental group strategies have tried to stop all coal plants being built in the u.s. is that a viable strategy given that coal is so popular in china and india. >> i'm going -- it's my view at the moment that the reason we're not building coal plants here is because of the price of natural gas. i mean, i'm not saying that, you know, sort of let's make sure we don't build in more power plants is not a value in the equation
3:53 pm
but the real issue is the price of natural gas. if it stays low you will be hard pressed to see coal being built here. forget china and india for a moment, we're going to need c.c.s. you're going to need it for gas. if we move to largely gas and some renewables, one scenario for the future, you're going find that almost all you have emissions are coming from gas which is as to kill fuel as well. you have to do c.c.s. for natural gas. if i was going to think of a single thing that is important here is to move the c.c.s. issue. i find that hard to figure out how to do that without some kind of policy. judy is working really hard on enhanced oil recovery as a way to get to c.c.s. but we have to figure out how to do it. even if we never build another
3:54 pm
coal plant here, you have to do it. you have to do it for national gas reasons. it is hard to do without a price signal or rule. >> anthony? >> thank you for this dialogue and for your optimism and your realism. i won't call it pessimism. >> i know you're joking. >> i have a question for the transportation sector and we talked about vehicles and their address to vehicle efficientcy. california through one of its programs has to be 375 has seen interesting results coming out of the regions. the los angeles region, which is known for its autos has just released a plan that shows a
3:55 pm
8-9% reduction in greenhouse emissions just from better land use planning, which brings different types of housing, jobs, services. >> that's great. can you figure out how to get everyone else to do this. >> this does come to a question. the m.p.o.'s, including the southern california and other places around the country are demonstrating leadership in this space. the question is, what can the federal government do to support them, help them, we have a re authorization of the bill coming up? >> i'm not an expert. where is nick? we have a panel on this topic. that looked at all options in price changes but he also was
3:56 pm
the head of connecticut of the -- now that he's thinking if he wants to come up here. to plug our work in addition to electric vehicles we're looking at the other side of the eation. -- equation as you know, it is harder to guess what the changes and land use might result to. until arlington, virginia, where i live we have been able to keep the emissions flat even though there has been a boom. people love living along the orange line corridor. so my answer to your question is, in the debate, when states are held accountable and money flows accordingly.
3:57 pm
people in your state and the federal government needs to figure out how to figure it out together. >> there are examples, i mean, you mentioned what is happening here and in california. we've had lots of conversations and there has been achievements or at least the promise of achievements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the metropolitan regions. unfortunately, that is not the national pattern and i think -- there are other examples. looking to the transportation planning process, let alone to stay local is something that is going to have short term impacts and in the immediate term i'm talking over 10, 15, 20 years. it seems to me is something we
3:58 pm
should shoot for but unlikely to occur. as vicki knows, t.o.b. did a research with a special committee operating the same time that we were and it looked specifically at land use planning and the reduction of greenhouse gases. i think the results of that were -- should be done but when you talk about fleet rollover and automobiles and trucks, how about the rollover of residential facilities. the payoffs are so long-term and so marginal in the periods when we're in with all these results that you talked about now. it is not very promising. it should be something we consider but we're we have to
3:59 pm
deal with -- we have to deal with the regulatory as been discussed here. the pattern here and it is very promising in the short run is command and control regulation. what promises to be achieved there, it is not perfect but it is the most important thing. if we could move to a tax regime. prices are going to go up with gasoline. so a lot of reinforce the regulatory environment and think is an important element in this. >> don't you think the temperature graphs are on our side -- demographics on our side, a lot of young people are not driving? >> there are some indications p, there are some indications and i
4:00 pm
think that certainly the broader demographic pattern of an aging population is along with a bad economy of what is the reality, a per-capita basis. it has been flat since 2005 on a per-capita basis. that is primarily the aging population. we need more, it is interesting that some of these initiatives are really not engaged. i think, respectfully, is the fault of the governors. governors do not think of issues that we are discussing as a transportation issue.
4:01 pm
>> i am with the aerospace trade association. i want to thank everybody for such a great conference. i hear a lot of interesting work going on in the realm of government this morning. the larger atmosphere, as you may be aware, i do a lot with sequestration. the federal budget situation we have and how it filters down to the state programs. >> is that good enough?
4:02 pm
>> in the fiscal issues are going to be with us for a long time. they will be the dominant item at our politics for a long time. that is one of the many reasons i think they are doing a lot at the national level. we are going to be focused on one-year's budget. that is what i think will be occupying many people for a long time. the picture isn't right. the prize that everybody will pay, i don't care where you end up on the political spectrum.
4:03 pm
i don't think there is any way to avoid it. >> we will live this conversation, you can find it on line. the remarks by japanese prime minister in washington meeting with president obama in here to talk about u.s.-japanese relations. >> the more important you are in washington, the worse you are treated when you come to a building. there were six elevators, you could take any one you wanted. you have to come on the trash elevator. we make you come down to reserve room. that is what it means when you are important. it is called security.
4:04 pm
we are delighted to have the prime minister here. this is an exciting time for us. we know of his leadership through the years and we are really delighted to have him here. we are excited that he can be with us today. i would especially like to say words of thanks for our colleagues. we are delighted to have you here, a senior advisor to the prime minister is here. the deputy chief and cabinet secretary. the ambassador is here, one of my bosses. i have to recognize him. a great service for america and japan, we are delighted to have you here. and the governor from alaska, he is our closest state to japan and has the keenest interest in japan. it is wonderful to have you
4:05 pm
here, governor. there is a new word in washington, the new economics that prime minister abe is bringing to japan. we have to get ourselves started again and i think that is exactly what he is doing in japan. i would like to take a second, talk about the foreign-policy agenda. japan's foreign policy going forward to protect freedom of thought, expression, and speech in the asia-pacific. can you think of anything more important than that? this will help transform the region. to make sure that the seas are governed by rule of law and not by intimidation or power.
4:06 pm
to pursue interconnected economies and bring about a more fruitful enter cultural ties with japan and other countries in asia. and to promote the exchange with the younger generation. these are the principles the prime minister has articulated and i think they are good for america. this is a partnership that is good for us. we will have a chance to hear prime minister abe. the meeting with the president was extended because -- i do not know how much he is going to tell us. it is a very important dialogue that we have between japan and america. this is the most foundational relationship we have and we needed to be successful. i know the prime minister will be a key leader for that.
4:07 pm
about 80% of americans believe that u.s.-japan relationships is the most important foundational relationship in asia. it is emblematic of how a important we give this relationship. in his tenure and president obama's second term, we are delighted to have him here. please welcome him with your applause, prime minister abe. [applause] >> thank you for your warm introduction. thank you, ambassador.
4:08 pm
thank you, governor. thank you, doctor green. and thank you all for joining me today. last year, we updated a paper about japan. they asked if japan would end up becoming that nation. here is my answer to you. it is not and will never be [indiscernible] that is the core message i am here to make. i am back. [laughter] [applause] thank you. and so shall japan be.
4:09 pm
that is what i wanted to say. i could stop here and take questions for the next 50 minutes. i know, however, that society has started to look anxious. bear with me for another 20 minutes. the time i have spent, five years, since being prime minister. first and foremost, where japan should stand in the future. japan could do this, and what
4:10 pm
japan must continue to do, here are the tasks that are always in my mind. in the asia-pacific, it gets more and more prosperous. japan remains. for investment properties, labor, environment, and the like. secondly, japan must continue to be a guardian of global commands. like maritime command (enough to benefit everyone.
4:11 pm
japan will work even more closely with the u.s.. throughout the region. we are and effective ally and partner to the u.s.. i also looked at the globe. as your longstanding ally and partner, japan is a country that has benefited from and contributed to peace and prosperity in the asia pacific for well over half a century.
4:12 pm
needless to say, it has been our alliance. it is high time in this era of a resurgence for japan to bear even more responsibilities to promote our values. and grow side-by-side with high achievers in the region. no luxury is allowed for japan to be absorbed against economic malaise. they also told me that japan must remain a robust partner in fighting against terrorism. the result is even stronger now after what happened in algeria.
4:13 pm
the killing of 10 japanese and three american engineers. the world still awaits japan. we are promoting human rights. global warming. the list goes on. that is why i am turning around the japanese economy. i said a moment ago that the agents are making great progress with the exceptions of a single country. i should have added the exception, of course. north korea.
4:14 pm
the nuclear test, inducing an added distinction. the nuclear ambitions should not be tolerated unless they give up on developing a nuclear arsenal. they objected. my government will give them no reward. this is no regional matter. we should work with the u.s., south korea, and others to stop them from seeking those ambitions.
4:15 pm
if you look at the lapel of my jacket, u.s., south i put on a blue ribbon to remind myself each and every day that i must bring back the japanese people that north korea has objected. among banharn was a girl -- among them was a girl who was only 13. that is the reason why behind human rights, japan must stay strong. for the economy and also for national defense. i put onlet me tell you that jt be here as well.
4:16 pm
to increase for the first time in many years, the budget for homeland defense. today, here, with you and all of my distinct friends and guests, i make a pledge. i will get back a strong japan. we will do more good for the betterment of the world. [applause] japanese borders have given me a renewed ability as prime minister to turn my tasks in to reality. each morning, a wake-up with
4:17 pm
tremendous responsibility. something called abenomics. i did not coin the word. this is the name for my economic supply. in japan, inflation has gone on for more than a decade. my plan is to get rid of that, first and foremost. indeed, it has made a jump start. the bank of japan who will do their job. investors, both japanese and foreign.
4:18 pm
japan's industrial fell to export growth has risen as a result. the second is to carry out a supplementary budget. to lift the economy by 2%. the third one is about growth strategy. consumption and investment will come much sooner. so far, all economic indicators, which have shot those before.
4:19 pm
but only in committcrementally. there are strong and being shot with any interval. soon, japan will export more. the u.s. will be the first to benefit from that. from china, india, indonesia, and so on. that is not the end of the story. a task even graver remains. to enhance japan's productivity. women should be given much
4:20 pm
greater opportunities. the mostly aged population should be able to give their money to the younger generation with similar tax burdens, which is exactly what my government is now doing. before conclusion, let me make a few words on china. and then define how i view the u.s.-japan relationship. history and international law sover testtest the japan eign territory. between 1895 and 1971, no
4:21 pm
challenge was made by anyone against japanese sovereignty. we simply cannot tolerate any challenge now and in the future. no nation should make any miscalculation about the permanence of our resolve. no one should ever doubt the robustness of the japan-u.s. law letalliance. at the same time, i have absolutely no intention for escalation. my government is investing more into the people oppose the exchange's between japan and china.
4:22 pm
relations with china stand out as among the most important. i never cease to pursue what i call mutually beneficial relationships based on the economic interests with china. the doors are always open for the chineserelationships leader. it leads me to say a few words on our mutual ties between the u.s. and japan. in order for us, japan and the united states, to generally provide for the region at the world, more democracy and more
4:23 pm
security with less poverty, japan must stay strong. that is my first point. i have started to revisit our national defense program outline. our defense ministry is getting an increased budget in order to do that at the start. looking back, it is remarkable. between japan and the u.s., bad days and good, rain or shine, for more than one-fourth of the entire history of the united states. it should not surprise anyone.
4:24 pm
the oldest and the biggest maritime democracy. and japan also has the most experienced and the biggest democracy. it is a natural fit. the biggest emerging market, now out in conclusion. ladies and uncommon, my task is to look towards the future. and make japan the second biggest emerging market in the world.
4:25 pm
and even more trusted partner for the region and the world. the road ahead is not short. i know that. but i have made a comeback just to do it. for the betterment of the world. i know that i must work hard as well to make it happen. ladies and gentlemen, japan is back. [applause] and keep counting on my country. thank you very much. [applause]
4:26 pm
>> prime minister, thank you very much, and welcome back. we will take questions. please ask the questions in english. keep them short and to set the standard, i will turn it back to john. >> i don't know of an american president that could give a speech to the japanese public in japanese. i want to say thank you, this is a real honor that you gave us this speech in english, thank you. prime minister, i received a phone call from the national security council had they said it was a very good meeting. they felt it was quite constructive and they did not tell me what you talked about. i am wondering about your insights in your perspective.
4:27 pm
[speaking japanese] >> hey's meeting is attended by
4:28 pm
vice president biden and the secretary of state. basically, we discussed how we would strengthen the alliance that exist between our two countries. as a result of our discussion, we were able to share not just the understanding of strengthening our alliance, but concrete ways in which we would achieve that. we were able to agree completely on those things between the two of us. and i think the bond of alliance between japan and the united states which tends to waver a little bit during the past three years, i can declare with confidence that a strong bond of alliance between japan and the united states is back. we were able to discuss many issues, wide-ranging, and the area of politics, regional
4:29 pm
issues, economics, and we talked about how we will deal with those issues in those areas. based on a strong like between the two countries. >> [speaking japanese] >> this is one example, but on the issue of north korea have the launching of muscles and the conducting of of tests by north korea, we agree that we would deal with these issues in a cooperated way. we would resolutely deal with that issue and jointly pursue a
4:30 pm
chapter 7 resolution in the un security council. we also talked about how we would strengthen sanctions. for example, financial sanctions being applied to north korea. >> [speaking japanese] >> concerning the asia-pacific region, we agreed that we would have to work together to maintain freedom of the seas. and also that we would have to create a region governed not on force, but based on international law.
4:31 pm
>> thank you for coming and taking my question. i am a student at american university and i conducted a research study to examine how the next generation of americans use the u.s.-japan relationship. the greatest problem i found was a lack of awareness and what is going to happen moving forward. i was wondering if you could address your plan to make sure that you understand the rich history our countries have had. >> [speaking japanese]
4:32 pm
>> i look like the people from the younger generation to pay attention to the alliance between japan and the united states. i said this in the meeting with the president today that a stronger united states leads to a stronger japan. and a stronger japan leads to a stronger united states. this is not only for the promotion of our respective national interests, but also for a lot of things we can do
4:33 pm
together in areas like the middle east or africa or at the united nations. our countries can do things together working in these areas to create a better world. moving forward in the future, i would like people to think about this. >> [speaking japanese]
4:34 pm
>> in concrete terms, the u.s. forward deployment strategy is the linchpin of peace and stability in the region. but at the same time, the presence of the u.s. forces in japan is what leads to peace and stability in the region. japan provides a possibility for that to happen as well. i don't think there is any country in the world that doesn't have the willingness to serve as a port for the fleet. >> mr. prime minister, it is good to see you again. you mentioned in your speech about north korea. i would like to ask you about south korea. we have a new president to be inaugurated next week.
4:35 pm
but at the same time, it has created a difficult tension in japan and south korea relations. i would like to know what your vision is for the future. given the threats that you mentioned in your speech. [laughter] >> [speaking japanese]
4:36 pm
4:37 pm
>> first of all, i would like to say that korea, south korea is the most important neighbor for us. and the president-elect, i have had -- i have met her twice and i have had a meal with her. my grandfather was best friends with her father. at the same time, the president was someone very close with japan, obviously. but we do have the territorial issue between japan and the united states. japan and korea, sorry.
4:38 pm
hurry up. -- korea. even with those issues, the economic relationship is very strong. the people to people exchange is very strong. the ties with japan and korea is something that cannot be severed. i think the relationship that we have which south korea is extremely important, the cooperation we can achieve between these two countries. we can try to work to resolve these issues and have a good relationship with three out. -- with korea. we are planning to dispatch the prime minister.
4:39 pm
>> thank you for a speech with so many good sound buoys. -- sound bites. are there things you would like to have the united states say or do? have you conveyed some wishes or perhaps something more, like actions or statements? >> [speaking japanese]
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
>> on that issue, the obama administration has already made clear that article 5 of the japan-u.s. treaty applies. they have also made clear that they opposed unilateral action to undermine japan's administrations. maybe this is not just limited to the same issue, but on the issues of the sea, i think it is important that we do not tolerate people's actions when they try to alter the status quo based on force. that is what is necessary.
4:42 pm
and on that issue, our intention is not to ask the united states to do this or that. we intend to protect our territory. if it is inherently japanese territory and we intend to continue to protect our own territory into the future. at the same time, our intention is to deal with this issue in a reserve the matter. you'll be doing so in the future. we think that this issue should not be escalated and we do not agree to that kind of approach. i know that they have a press conference later, so i am trying to look for non-japanese questions.
4:43 pm
over there in the back. >> a senior associate with the defense department. thank you for sharing your reassuring message about japan's intention to return to the world stage and claim greater international responsibility. you mentioned you and president obama agreed that the north korean threat requires a chapter 7 resolution. what is your expectation of , and do you think china has played an enabling role in the missile and nuclear program?
4:44 pm
>> [speaking japanese]
4:45 pm
>> i believe that china is a country with the biggest amount of influence over north korea. and i think implementing sanctions, we need the cooperation of china. and also in our efforts to adopt chapter 7 sanctions
4:46 pm
resolution in the un security council, since china is a permanent member of the council, we need cooperation from them as well. and when we look at the recent missile launcher and the nuclear test by north korea, we look to these, not as simple events, but in combination. they have increased the range of their missile immensely and they have not attained the ability to reach even mainland united states. and they themselves have said that they have made their nuclear bombs smaller, and they have delivered on a missile. at the same time, i believe they are working and moving towards obtaining those kinds of technologies. this is why i think the united states is pressuring china to
4:47 pm
exert more influence over north korea. i think the important thing is for the entire international community to work on china towards that end. >> japan is back. it has a strong leader and america is your partner. would you share with me your applause? [applause] everybody please stay seated because we need to let the prime minister get out. it is a security thing. the escorts will take him out.
4:48 pm
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> of the japanese prime minister met today with president obama at the white house. they discussed u.s.-japan relations. here is a look at some of their conversation. >> i never think that anything is inevitable. we obviously have the capability to make the right decisions and
4:49 pm
i think very clearly that these kind of arbitrary and automatic cuts would have an adverse impact on families, teachers, parents that are reliant on head start programs. on military readiness. on mental health services. this is not a smart way for us to affect the deficit. i have also been very clear that there is an alternative for us to take a balanced approach where we have more strategic cuts and we close some tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the well-off. i believe that is what a majority of the american people prefer. i will continue to have conversations both with members of congress and when they get back next week. my hope is that when we see a
4:50 pm
different course taken by congress, this should be a no- rainer. the overall effect of the economy will be to slow down the recovery. not only will there and of being directed job loss, but because the economy is softer, we will not be driving down unemployment as quickly as we should. with respect to world leaders, i think that unlike issues like the debt ceiling, the sequester going into effect will not threaten the world financial system. it is not like the u.s. the vaulting on its obligations. if that is the u.s. growing slower, and then other countries
4:51 pm
grow slower because we tend to be a central entity in economic growth. particularly, when we are poised to grow rapidly as housing comes back, we start to see real signs of the recovery taking root. ultimately, i don't need to persuade a world leaders of that. i just have to persuade members of congress. >> will you be able to reach a deal over the next week? >> hope springs eternal and i will keep making my case not only the congress but the american people. i don't want to endanger the economy or endanger jobs. >> here is a look at the schedule.
4:52 pm
starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, ray lahood talked about the effects of sequestration on his department that could include airport delays and the reduction of air traffic control staff. but tv looks at the civil rights movement and on c-span 3, we visit historical sites across the country. earlier today, the brookings institution hosted an event on modernizing the military budget. the former georgia center -- senator said that should not be the way to cut spending. here is what he had to say. >> let me take a moment to point out, i see an agreement between the two papers. i think both of them agree on
4:53 pm
the overall debt reduction being absolutely critical to national security. the biggest threat to the nation's security is the deficit problem and the debt problem. i think that is the problem. the reform of defense within the budget is just as important as the top line. both are important but both have to be addressed. it is what you do within the defense budget. the third point we agree on, the sequester is not the way to cut. it is the worst possible way. they said it is stupid, and it is. it is counterproductive that you gave defense the same numbers and gave defense a lot of flexibility at the end of the 10 years, and the fourth point i
4:54 pm
think there is agreement on, personnel costs are unsustainable. these changes are not going to happen. michele may have a different view on this, but the size of the forces, we can talk about cuts in services. talking about the same number of people, meeting those budget requirements. the next point there is agreement on, there will have to be a national understanding on this, much more so. we will have a more prudent and restrained commitment for military forces to solve problems around the world. we simply cannot continue to make the kind of decisions in 20
4:55 pm
years. i think both indicate that if we are smart, you should be able to retain the strongest and most capable military and the world. that is another assumption. without leadership, that is not going to happen. >> that was the discussion on modernizing the military budget. you can watch any time on line. tomorrow, the governors' association holds the winter meeting in washington. jack markell and mary fallin employ people with disabilities and the role that states play. that starts tomorrow the gover''
4:56 pm
association at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. was one of the wealthiest with those and she was considered an enemy by the british that threatens to take her hostage. later, she would become the nation's first lady. meet martha washington in the first program of the weekly series, "first ladies: influence and image." we will visit colonial williamsburg, mt. vernon, valley forge, philadelphia. and be part of a conversation with phone calls, tweeds, and face but posts. -- tweets and facebook posts. >> at today's white house briefing, the transportation secretary warns that sequestration could result 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in airport delays and the reduction
4:57 pm
of air traffic control staff. the press secretary also talked about the automatic budget cuts. this is close to an hour. >> i remember all of you from roll call. [laughter] they would ask me all these dumb questions. >> i just want to say that it is my pleasure, and clearly yours, to have with me today the secretary of transportation who is here to speak with you about the impacts of the sequester as a comes to pass on the american travel industry.
4:58 pm
as we have talked about a lot of the sequestration cuts. secretary lahood is here discuss what aspect of that with you. afterwards, i will be able to take questions on other issues. we are on a slightly constrained time schedule. the democratic governors and the prime minister of japan, i turn it over to secretary lahood. >> sequestration will have a serious impact on transportation services critical to the public and the nation's of the economy. we would need to cut $1 billion which would affect dozens of our programs. over $600 million of these cuts will need to come from the
4:59 pm
federal aviation administration. the agency that controls and manages the nation posies guys. the vast majority of the faa employees will be furloughed for approximately one day. in some cases, it could be as many as two days. we are sharing details with our unions and we will construct planning for serious impact. here is what these automatic cuts are going to mean for the traveling public. safety is our top priority, and we are never allowing the amount of aircraft to take off and land, so travelers should expect delays. travelers in cities like new york and san francisco can
5:00 pm
experience delays up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff. delays in these major airports will ripple across the country. cuts to budgets mean preventative maintenance and quick repair of runway equipment might not be possible, which could lead to more delays. and once airlines see the potential impact of these furloughs, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights. so we are beginning today discussions with our unions to likely close more than 100 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year. and we're talking about places like boca raton, florida, joplin, missouri, hilton head, south carolina, and san marcos, texas. the list of the towers -- the list of potential towers that are to be closed, or
5:01 pm
elimination of midnight shifts, is posted on our website as i'm speaking now. so you can see the entire list there. we're also beginning discussions with unions to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country. the closures will impact services for commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft. this will delay travelers and delay the critical goods and services that communities across the country need. these are harmful cuts with real-world consequences that will cost jobs and hurt our economy. the president has put forward a solution to avoid these cuts. and as a former member of congress of 14 years, i urge my former colleagues to address this issue when they get back next monday, and to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit challenges.
5:02 pm
answer some questions. >> mr. secretary, these cuts and these cutbacks that you're talking about, are these the type of things that the public will start seeing on march 2nd? or is this going to be a longer rollout? >> we think the rollout will take from march 1st to april 1st, and they'll begin to see the activity in the layoffs and the delays probably beginning around april 1st. >> are there any other ways to avoid the cuts other than those you have outlined? there are some republicans who say you could mitigate these effects by doing other things in your budget system. >> look, the sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. it just does not. and it's very clear. and the idea that we can move aip, which is the airport improvement fund -- which in most places has a pretty good chunk of money -- sequester doesn't allow that. look, this is very painful for us because it involves our
5:03 pm
employees, but it's going to be very painful for the flying public. as a former member of congress, i heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flights were delayed or when their flights were cancelled, and this is going to have an enormous impact. >> could you clarify why the flights will be delayed? is it a matter of mileage between flights? >> because we're going to reduce the number of controllers, which guide planes in and out of airports. >> so more distance between planes -- landing distance -- >> well, it's going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their opportunity to that they would ordinarily do at>> how about tsa implications? >> tsa is under homeland security. we're not -- that's a different lane. >> your total budget at dot is, what, $70-some billion? >> $70 billion, in round numbers, yes -- 55,000 employees.
5:04 pm
>> so help the public understand -- a billion dollars cut. you've got a big budget. can't you find some other way to cut that without telling air traffic controllers to stay home? >> well, we're doing that. we're looking at every contract, and we're going -- our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what penalties we would have to pay as we begin to cut or adjust contracts. we're looking at everything possible, and everything do. but this has to be a part of it. dot has 55,000 employees. the largest number of those employees are at the faa, and the largest number of those employees are controllers and they're all over the country. there has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. a billion dollars is a lot of money. >> but let's be clear -- it's less than 2 percent of your
5:05 pm
budget. >> it's a lot of money, jonathan. and where i come from, which is central illinois, a billion dollars is a lot of money. and it's very difficult when you have this kind of -- the number of employees that we have guiding planes in and out of look at everything, and that's what we've done. >> are you just basically throwing out whatever sounds like the most severe consequence in order to ratchet up pressure? and are you having discussions with some of your former colleagues up on the hill to warn them of what's coming? >> the answer is, yes, we are having discussions with members of congress. we have briefed staff people on the respective committees -- commerce committee in the senate, t&i committee in the house. and they know the impact and they know why we're doing this. they know a lot about these numbers we're dealing with because we work with them on a regular basis. and the idea that we're just doing this to create some kind of a horrific scare tactic is nonsense.
5:06 pm
we are required to cut a billion dollars, and if more than half of our employees are at the faa, the faa -- there has to be some impact. announcing what we're announcing. >> mr. secretary, what sort of impact will these delays have on the airline industries and their financials, specifically? do you have any forecast for what that will do? >> well, we're talking to the airline industry today -- a4a, which represents all of the airlines, we're talking to them. we'll be probably talking to individual airlines. we're making this announcement today, and obviously we have to work through with them what impact this will have. going to have to restrict some of the flights that they currently -- are on their books to fly in the next -- within the next 30 days. >> will they be required to compensate passengers for delays? >> you'll have to talk to them about that.
5:07 pm
u.s. law that they have to do that? where does this figure into that? >> you'll have to talk to the airlines about that. yes. >> just to be clear, have the airlines specifically said they will definitely have to choose -- >> you know, we just started to talk to the airlines today. they're hearing about this. we're on the phone -- our folks are on the phone with them right now. we're on the phone with the airlines, we're on the phone with our unions. we're sending an email to all of our employees so everybody gets the same information at the same time. >> so they have said it's a possibility this is one of the things that -- >> well, we believe that it's not possible to continue the same schedules with less people. >> and then on the issue of safety, how can you guarantee that safety standards will be met if you're scaling back? >> because that's what we're in the business of. that's what we do every day. our people get up every day and think about safety, and we think about it in a way that maybe nobody else thinks about it -- certainly common, ordinary citizens.
5:08 pm
i've said many, many times people -- thousands of people today boarded planes, buses, got in their cars, and the thing they didn't think about was safety. we do. and we're not -- we will never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we just absolutely will not. and that's the reason, back to jonathan's question, we're looking at everything. furlough days. we're looking at every contract. our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what impact it has for us to try and find some savings in those areas. alarm being raised now? why not three, four months ago? why now? >> because we're within 30 days of sequester. i mean, sequester really begins march 1st, but we have a 30-day window here to prepare people. and we've been working with our colleagues here at the white house and omb for a number of months on what impact this is going to have.
5:09 pm
and now is the time to do it. >> mr. secretary -- >> jim. >> yesterday, at the airlines for america briefing, the airline lobby actually said that there would be no effect, that they suspected there would be no significant impact on the air travel system. where is the disconnect between what you're saying and what the airlines are saying? >> i don't think they have the information we're presenting to them today. i don't know what they used for that, jim. but it's -- i think when they see the kind of cutbacks that are going to be made at some of these towers, they're going to have no choice but to really look at the fact that there are going to be delays, and there are going to have to be some cutbacks on some of these flights. >> let me follow up on safety, if i could. what is going to be the effect on faa inspectors? some of them that are doing the -- who are reviewing the safety of these planes? >> everything will be impacted in terms of the controllers and contracts.
5:10 pm
when it comes to our safety programs, there will be no compromise. and those are things that we're looking at, but we want to make sure that those people that are, for example, doing the work on the 787, doing the work on inspecting planes, no compromise when it comes to safety. >> mr. secretary -- thank you, sir. mr. secretary, as far as international carriers are concerned, are you in touch with international carriers, if international passengers are going to be affected from this? because whatever happens in washington, whole world is affected, people around the globe. >> yes, we'll be in touch with all of the airlines. >> mr. secretary, you said you've been talking with the unions about this. are they going along proposal? or are they -- >> we just started our talks today. our faa administrator, michael huerta, has been talking to paul rinaldi, the head of the controllers union. but the call today will be with
5:11 pm
the entire leadership of the controller's union. >> are you concerned that they could object to the kinds of cuts you are proposing? >> well, we'll find out. i mean, look, the discussions are beginning now. i'm sure that they've never been bashful about expressing their point of view. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, does this in any way affect amtrak all that much? >> no, sir. >> no. >> no, sir, it does not. yes. >> mr. secretary, we went through this rodeo once before two months ago, the last time we came to the sequester deadline. did any of these conversations happen at the end of december last year with the unions and with the airlines? >> of course. when we thought that there was going to be a sequester, of course we -- we're in continual discussions with these folks. we have a great partnership with them. and the answer is yes, of course. bill. >> mr. secretary, if the sequester goes through and these cuts kick in, how quickly can you turn off the switch and put things back to normal?
5:12 pm
>> look, all of our planning and all of our discussions and all of our work are about getting to where we're at today, with this announcement, with our discussions, and we'll see where it takes us. and planning for a restart is -- we haven't had a lot of discussion about that at this point. >> is there any requirement under the sequester that once it kicks in it has to last three months or four months or five months? >> no, not that i know of. >> what are you telling republicans in congress, mr. secretary? >> that this is going to have a huge impact on their constituents. look, and i can tell you -- >> when you break it down politically for them, what are you saying? >> that your phones are going to start ringing off the hook when these people are delayed at airports, and their flights are delayed 90 minutes, or their flights are cancelled, or their air tower is closed. look, you all know i was in congress 14 years. i represented central illinois,
5:13 pm
which included peoria and springfield, both with air towers. any time there was even a threat of a closing of an air tower in peoria/springfield, our phones started ringing off the hook from controllers, but also from people who use the airport. so it's not only the impact on the passengers, it's the impact that it has on airports, control towers, people who work there, airports. start ringing. why does this have to happen? nobody likes a delay. nobody likes waiting in line. none of us do. hamburgert get our within five minutes -- if we can't get on the plane within 30, 40, 50 minutes after going through, you know what happens. they start calling their member of congress. >> but to jonathan's question, you're going to scrub everything
5:14 pm
to make sure the priority is safety and usability, right? >> number one is safety. always has been, always will be. we never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we will never compromise safety -- ever. never have and never will. yes, sir. >> do you agree with the administration's position that this is a manufactured crisis, one manufactured by your former house colleagues? >> i think republicans need to step up here. i served for 14 years. during those 14 years, i was -- 12 of those years i was in the majority party. speaker gingrich was the speaker. he worked with then-president bill clinton. we balanced the budget five of those fourteen years. it meant that there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. this is people coming together the way that other congresses
5:15 pm
have done to solve big issues. i suggest that my former colleagues on the republican side go see the movie "lincoln," because in the movie "lincoln," it shows how hard it was back then to get things done. but what lincoln did is he gathered people around him the way that i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them. and when that happens, big things get solved. the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. so this can happen again. yes, ma'am. >> yes, have your phones been ringing from members of the public? and if so, what are they saying? >> i'm sorry have -- >> have your phones been ringing from members of the public yet? >> no, but look, this is the announcement today. we've been doing a lot of this background work, and so i have no doubt my phones will ring from members of congress -- why is my control tower being
5:16 pm
closed? >> mr. secretary, where were these warnings two weeks ago, a week ago? i mean, speaking of movie references, this might be called an acting performance, because you are -- you're going to be scaring the public today. this is going to be scaring the public about their travel plans. >> well, we'll see what the reaction of the public is. what i'm trying to do is to wake up members of the congress on the republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table, offer a proposal so that we don't have to have this kind of calamity in the air service in america. and we want to get it right, so we've spent the last few weeks putting all of this information together so we do have it right. so that we are not just taking a meat axe to one part of faa, breadth of the entire agency. >> mr. secretary, you said that you want these guys to wake up. have you awakened them by using a phone? have you called any republicans
5:17 pm
recently? >> yes, i just said i've been talking to republicans and their staff on the t&i committee and on the senate commerce -- >> can you tell us who you spoke with and what the nature of those interactions were? and what are they saying to you in terms of their own leadership? >> i doubt if you really want a list of the members of congress i've been talking to, okay? but take -- >> how many? enumerate. >> a half a dozen. >> and what are they telling you about what they think about their own leadership? >> i didn't talk to them about their leadership. i talked to them about the impact on air travel and air traffic control towers. >> what was their reaction? >> it's not good. they get it. in the back. >> the republicans would say -- and they have been saying this -- that the democrats in the senate should act on two bills that they passed in the summertime. why aren't you calling the democrats in the senate and saying, pick up -- act on the republican bills and avoid sequester that way? what's wrong with that approach? >> i've been working on trying to figure out how we're going to get to a billion dollars. yes, sir.
5:18 pm
>> mr. secretary, in all the discussion about the sequester, you're the first cabinet secretary that's been brought into a white house briefing to talk about this for us recently. so, i mean, do you and the president think that the impatience of the american people at the airports is the strongest leverage point to press with the republicans? >> i would describe my presence here with one word -- republican. they're hoping that maybe i can influence some of the people in my own party. look, this is a big deal. it's a big deal because a lot of people -- common, ordinary citizens fly. a lot of people use airports. impact. >> the department of transportation is taking part of this hundred-city tour called the connecting your community to talk about proposals in the president's state of the union address. will you end your participation in that tour as a way to cut some savings right now?
5:19 pm
sending dot employees out to -- >> well, i was supposed to be in orlando and south carolina today, so i guess i have ended it. >> is it not going to happen? is there going to be a bridge -- tom coburn is asking for an explanation of why it's being held in light of the sequester potential? the hundred-city tour. >> you'll have to ask jay about that. >> i'll take that one. >> mr. secretary, let's say -- i'm finally traveling to india in the next two weeks, should i be worried? >> you're going to be delayed. (laughter.) last one. >> you said you're telling republicans to come to the table. are you telling them to raise taxes? -- >> no, i'm telling them to come to the table and start talking to democrats about how we solve this. they'll figure out the solution, just like they figured out the solution on the fiscal cliff. >> so you're not telling them that they shouldn't -- >> i have not told them the specifics about how to solve it. another.
5:20 pm
figure it out. that's the way we've always done things around here. have a great weekend, everybody. >> i want to thank secretary lahood with whom it is always a pleasure to share this podium. seriously. and he'll be missed by me and house. if i could just -- in answer to the question in the back, we'll just go straight to the issue here. the way to avert sequester is to pass a bill that can be agreed to by democrats and republicans that either buys down the sequester or, when there was time to do this, that achieves the $4-trillion goal by reducing the deficit further along the lines of the big deal
5:21 pm
that president obama and speaker boehner were talking about during the fiscal cliff negotiations. there's the offer the president made is still on the table -- spending cuts, entitlement savings, and revenues through tax reform. in this process, if you accept the premise that for democrats it is hard to go along with spending cuts -- or harder to go along with spending cuts and hard to go along with entitlement savings, that they might prefer to do revenues over that. so the tough sell to democrats is to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings, and that the tough sell, as we all know, because we hear it all the time, for republicans is to go along with revenue increases, and that leadership is represented in part, certainly in the discourse here in washington, by a willingness by the leaders of one party to convince their members to go along with tough choices. and i would then ask you to look at the proposals that we put up, that i had on the screen here yesterday, the offer that
5:22 pm
we made to speaker boehner, the president's budget, the president's submission to the super committee, which was specifically designed to eliminate the sequester. and in every single one, he has put forward balance. he has put forward spending cuts and savings from entitlement reforms. and as all of you know who have covered washington, some of that savings is a hard sell to democrats. but this president has been leading on the issue. unfortunately, we have not seen any commensurate action by republican leaders. their answer always is -- spending cuts only, no revenues, entitlement savings only, no revenues, burden borne by seniors or faa employees or border security guards or children with disabilities, but not the wealthiest, not corporations who enjoy tax breaks, not oil and gas companies who get subsidies. that is always their answer. so you can't -- it is hard to find a compromise solution with a side that says the only available solution from our view is if you come 100 percent
5:23 pm
to us. and that, unfortunately, has been the narrative that you have been dealing with -- and certainly we have been dealing with -- now for -- really since the beginning of 2011. the president supports the proposals that the senate democrats have put forward and the house democrats have put forward that would buy down the sequester and give congress time to work on a bigger deal to reach that $4-trillion target in deficit reduction. the president has signed into law, as you know, already $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction -- two-thirds of which is comprised of spending cuts and savings from entitlements. so only a third of that has been from revenues. we want balance. the american public wants balance. there was, i think, a public poll that was published in usa today -- i don't see a representative from that fine
5:24 pm
newspaper here today -- but yesterday that i think cited 76 percent of the american people support a balanced approach to this challenge. something like 19 percent supported a "my way or the highway" spending cuts-only approach. yes. >> since we're a week away from the deadline, is it the white house expectation at this point that the sequester will take effect next friday? >> we remain hopeful that congress will act, that the proposals democrats have been working on in both houses will be taken up and passed, that republicans will -- having heard some of the information about what the impacts will be on real people out there, and the macro impact on the economy -- will come to the conclusion that it is better simply to do what they did in december and allow this manufactured deadline to be postponed so that they can
5:25 pm
get back to the work of doing what secretary lahood was just talking about, which is coming together and finding a reasonable, bipartisan compromise, a balanced compromise, to complete this job of achieving $4 trillion- plus in deficit reduction over 10 years. >> but what are the realistic prospects of that happening over the next week? >> i've never done very well in vegas or atlantic city, so i'm not going to make odds for you. we obviously are discouraged by the line that republican leaders have taken, which is that the book is closed on revenue, despite the 76 percent of the american people who believe that balance is the right approach, that the only way to do this is the way they propose, which is not supported, obviously, in the senate and not supported by the american people, and not supported by the president. but we remain hopeful, and we will continue to engage with
5:26 pm
congress. we will continue to make our case around the country about why we need to avoid the sequester, what the damage of that would be to the economy and to average folks out there who -- some of whom are working today but will not be working 30 days from now if the sequester takes effect. this is incredibly important. it's about the broader enterprise here that everyone is engaged in -- those who are elected and sent to washington -- and that is taking steps to try to improve our economy, help it grow, and help the middle class. this does not help the middle class. it does the opposite. and it's bad policy, by design, so we should not let it take place. jackie. >> jay, could you tell us about what the president's message was to the democratic governors this morning about this subject? >> i confess i was in other meetings so i wasn't present. i know that the president intended to speak with governors about the issues that are of concern to them. and i think what we all know
5:27 pm
about governors is that the issues that are of concern to them tend to be issues that aren't broken down by party affiliation. and that's the need for actions to be taken that help job creation, the need for investments in infrastructure, issues involving implementation of the affordable care act, i'm sure, immigration reform -- many of the issues that we are discussing here in washington. but that's not a readout, that's just my understanding of what those conversations were likely to look like. >> is he intending to talk to them about encouraging them to go public with their concerns about the real-world impact of this in their states? >> well, i don't think you get elected governor in any state in this country if you are not out there talking about the issues that affect your constituents. and i don't -- so i guess my answer to that is i don't think he would have to tell governors
5:28 pm
of either party to be concerned about it or to communicate with their constituents about it. i expect that that's going to happen across the country. and democrats and republicans are going to have to explain what implementation of the sequester will mean in terms of job loss, furloughs, reduced economic growth, closure of airport towers, or reduced hours for air traffic controllers at their airport. these are just a handful of the impacts that we would see if the sequester goes into effect. >> jay, the secretary said sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. is that completely true? does omb have any discretion? do the agencies have any discretion? >> i can't remember if you were in the chair when i had danny werfel here to talk about this from omb about how the law dictates what must happen in
5:29 pm
terms of the cuts. and i think secretary lahood reflected the -- in layman's terms -- the facts, which is there is very little flexibility in terms of how to make those cuts happen. within that limited flexibility, secretary lahood made clear that he will -- he and i'm sure other secretaries are doing this -- are doing everything they can to deal with these cuts and absorb them, prepare for them in a way that allows them to achieve their mission. and in the case of the department of transportation and the faa, top priority is safety. so as he said at the top, that would mean -- because the faa is such a big chunk of the department of transportation and unavoidably would be affected by furloughs -- that you would have only the number of takeoffs and landings that the system could bear with a reduced staff. and that means -- and still maintain the levels of safety
5:30 pm
that the faa does. so that means reducing the number of flights, or delaying flights, with all that means for travelers. >> and i wasn't just referring to the transportation, but broadly, the answer is that the flexibility is very limited? >> that's correct. and again, i would point you to the briefing that was done i believe last week in which danny werfel addressed this. >> and just one follow-up. generally, can you give us any sort of a hint about what other plans you guys have for next week? we know the president is traveling on tuesday, but otherwise how you intend to keep pushing this message up until the friday deadline? >> well, i don't have any other events or travel to announce. he will be going to newport news, virginia next week, as you know, to highlight the negative consequences of sequester and how they will be felt in that town, in that state. the fact is we have a full agenda, but it is certainly
5:31 pm
going to be the case next week that sequester and the impending deadline will i think consume a lot of people's attention here both on this side of the podium and your side. and i think that our activities will include engaging, as they have in the past, engaging with congress, hoping that we can find resolution here, hoping we can find an agreement. we're not -- the smaller agreement, just as was the case at the end of last year, is not asking of either side, because of its size, to make all of the hard decisions. a lot of that work would still be saved for completing the job of hitting the $4 trillion-plus target a broader deficit- reduction deal. but as the senate proposal shows and other proposals have shown, you can do this as they did in december, in a way that is balanced but should not be that
5:32 pm
difficult. so we're hoping -- we remain hopeful that that will happen. >> one of the interesting things that you're seeing in some of these polls -- and i know you mentioned some polling in your conversation with brendan buck, with the speaker's office last night -- >> good friend, brendan. (laughter.) >> -- is that there's a large number -- >> i mean that seriously. >> there's a large percentage of americans who are unaware of what's going to happen with this sequester, don't even know what the sequester is, whether it should be called sequestration or sequester. >> we're all still struggling with that one, i think. >> why are these warnings, like secretary lahood's warnings, coming so late in the game? i mean we're hearing about faa delays one week before the -- >> i refrained from interjecting because he's a cabinet secretary, but i wanted to say i wanted to leap to the podium and point that we put out, as mandated by law, a report on the implementation of sequester, i
5:33 pm
believe last september, because the deadline at that time was january 1st. and the fact is we have been talking about this and answering question, and making clear that the planning was in effect in the lead-up to the potential deadline at the end of last year. and it was only -- remember, we're now, what, seven weeks since the 1st of the year, so it was only -- it hadn't been that long since the last deadline passed, but it was pushed back by the fiscal cliff deal. there was a lot of concern, obviously, late last year, in fact, a great deal of concern on the part of republicans about the potential for sequester taking effect. they seem to have had a change of heart about that. but at the time there was great concern expressed by republicans about that. what was also the case is we were engaged -- because of the other deadlines, the fiscal cliff, the fact that there was the potential that taxes would go up on middle-class americans around the country -- we were in engaged in negotiations with the speaker of the house in an effort to try to achieve a bigger deal that would have both dealt with averting those tax hikes and further deficit reduction.
5:34 pm
unfortunately, the speaker walked away from that deal. but the environment was different. now we're not seeing any flexibility from -- it was different then than it is now. we're not seeing much interest at this point from republican leaders in even engaging in a discussion about how we can move forward with a balanced package. the line they keep drawing in the sand is, i don't care what the public says, i don't care who is hurt by it, our position the republican position -- is cuts only, burden borne only by senior citizens, children with disabilities. >> is that a fair read of the substance of the conversations that went on between the president and republican leaders? >> i'm not going to read out those conversations. and i think you've seen that the leaders themselves who have had those conversations with the president aren't reading them out. we continue to, as a broad matter -- not specific to any one conversation -- to make the
5:35 pm
case that compromise is available here, that compromise is represented by taking a balanced approach. i mean, again, it really is important to me -- you can't -- the sort of pox on both their houses, false equivalence business that a lot of -- some commentators engage in where everybody is to blame equally here for how we got to this problem because nobody will compromise, but it is just factually incorrect. again, going back to that basic premise that it's harder for democrats to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings and harder for republicans to go with revenue increases -- so who has made the hard choices here? who has made the tough proposals? >> but to that point, democrats like to say republicans only control one-half of one-third of government. so shouldn't they just have one- half of one-third of the blame? >> the fact of the matter is that we can't get anything done without a bill passing the house of representatives, and the democratic party and the president of the united states do not control the house of representatives.
5:36 pm
we are confident that there is in excess of a majority in the senate that would support the balanced approach that the president has put forward, that the senate democrats have put forward. and we know, because your polling outfits tell the public this, that the public supports the balanced approach that the president has put forward. we also know it's the best economic policy. i was asked yesterday, i think, why can't -- doesn't the president have some power to just make the sequester go away on his own? and, of course, he would enjoy having that power, but the law of the land does not give it to him. jon. >> jay, even before we heard from secretary lahood, we've heard some dire warnings coming from the administration. just to tick through a few, we've heard about more wildfires, more workplace deaths, higher risk of terrorism, criminals set free. is there any exaggeration going on here? >> i think all of those things come from reduced numbers of
5:37 pm
people fighting fires, reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food, reduced numbers of people engaging in air traffic control. i mean, those are just the facts, jon. >> no other way to squeeze 3 percent out of the federal budget? >> i think we had this colloquy yesterday. the fact of the matter is that you are talking about a 13 percent cut in our defense budget and 9 percent cut in our nondefense discretionary budget this year. and there is no way to do that, based on the way the law is written, without having hugely negative impacts on individuals and families. furloughs would have to happen. layoffs would have to happen. that is a fact. and it's not just us saying this. you don't believe us, maybe you believe the cbo. maybe you believe macroeconomics advisers or moody's. they have projected fully a half a percentage point reduction in gdp growth.
5:38 pm
and you know, because you cover this stuff, what that means economically. they have projected three- quarters of a million people will lose their jobs if the sequester takes effect and stays in effect. those are real-world consequences. these are real people. it's not political leverage. it's a fact. and we're out there making clear that this is an important issue to deal with because of the real-world implications. the reason why the president continues to put forward and we made clear again on paper what we have been making clear all along, the president's very reasonable offer remains on the table because he wants to avoid this. let's just, again, go back to my basic point. it is not an easy sell to democrats to go along as part of a big deal with superlative cpi. it is not an easy argument necessarily to get democrats to go along with the reforms that the president has put in place in his proposal on entitlement reforms or with the spending cuts. it was not easy to sign into law $1.1 trillion in spending cuts.
5:39 pm
but he has done it, and democrats have done it. and what we haven't seen from republicans is anything equivalent. and we're just looking for a negotiating partner here. we're just looking for somebody to meet us halfway. >> is this hundred-city tour going to be cancelled? >> you know what, i saw somebody a reporter sent me this right before i came out here. i haven't had a chance to ask anybody about it. but we'll get back to you on it. >> but this would be the kind of thing, right? i mean, you wouldn't -- specific cabinet members all around the country -- >> i appreciate that a republican member has sent this around. i just don't have an answer for it, but i'll look into it. >> but the broader question, jay, would be to prioritize those things out of a sequester matrix, wouldn't it? for this president to say, we can do without those things? >> -- the sequester matrix, so i'm not sure what that means, but it sounds cool. >> you understand what i'm saying. the president would prioritize these things out of the budget and not label them a priority against meat and poultry inspections, against faa air traffic controllers, against wildfire fighters. i mean, wouldn't he?
5:40 pm
>> again, i would urge you to look at the law and look at what >> i have. >> -- the flexibility there is in the law, and it is extremely limited. and even if it weren't -- >> yes, it's extremely limited, but the dollars and cents can be applied at agency discretion. if there's a hundred-city tour, it can be decided -- >> i appreciate the talking point based on a letter that a republican just sent moments ago. i haven't seen it. i don't have an answer for it at this time, but i will look into it. you can find an individual thing and say that this could be cut and maybe it should be, whatever it is -- but it represents a drop in the bucket to an $85 billion cut, a 13 percent cut to our defense budget, and a 9 percent cut to our nondefense discretionary budget this year, this fiscal year. this is not spread out over 10 years. >> i understand that. >> this is not something you can backload. this happens now and it affects real people. and, again, don't take our word for it. look at what republicans used to say about it until i guess some consultant told them to say something else.
5:41 pm
look at what cbo and macroeconomics advisers and moody's have been saying. these are just the facts of the matter. one of the reasons why we're here, one of the reasons why we had the fiscal cliff fight and why we're discussing this is that everybody recognizes that these kind of indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts aren't good for the economy, aren't good for our defense, and they're not the way to sensibly reduce our deficit. >> i understand that. i'm just saying this president, as all presidents before him, took pride in prioritizing. and i'm just asking, as a priority for the president, the signal to the agencies would be prioritize your core functions >> absolutely. >> -- over non-essential functions like this or something like it. >> again, i appreciate on the item that you mentioned and i'm sure that somebody will get back to you with an answer on that. the fact of the matter is you just had a cabinet secretary with enormous responsibility for an agency that affects everybody who travels in our skies tell you exactly that -- that that's
5:42 pm
what he is doing on the instructions of the president. within the law, he's looking at every available mechanism to lessen the impact of these cuts on the core mission of the department of transportation, the core mission of faa. so i think the answer is to you, yes. >> this may be self-evident, but is it your position from the podium today to instruct or ask the senate democratic leadership to with all due speed next week pass their alternative to the sequester and send it to the house? >> we would absolutely like to see the senate take up and pass legislation that would avert the sequester in a balanced way, and the house to do that as well, yes. >> and within that context, it's $85 billion over the next nine months remaining in our fiscal year. does the deal that the white house envisions have to be $85 billion, or would it be smaller than that? >> the buy-down -- >> would be $85 billion -- >> the buy-down could be --
5:43 pm
look, it was two months on january 1st, december 31st -- it could be that. but the bill that has been put forward by democrats in the senate i believe takes it to the end of the year. the sequester, as you know, the $1.2 trillion is stretched over 10, yes. >> right, but that's over the next -- all those fiscal years. but just $85 billion is the contours of what you want, and you roughly have -- portion that half revenue and half spending cuts. so the federal budget could live with -- >> well, i would point -- whatever the ratio is in the bill, i would point you to the president's overall approach to this, which has been two dollars in spending cuts to one in revenue. >> jay, we've heard over the last couple of years from secretary geithner, from lael brainard, from mike froman, their concerns that countries in the eurozone were cutting too much, too quickly. to what extent does the president's experience in watching that inform his philosophy going into these negotiations? >> obviously, every country has dealt with the global economic
5:44 pm
crisis that befell us in 2007, 2008 in different ways. we believe, and the president believes, that the approach that was taken here in washington was the right one, and that as a result -- even though we suffered a calamitous recession, the worst of our lifetimes that took millions and millions of jobs -- we have been able through hard work and tough decisions, and the grit and determination of the american people, to come to a position where the economy has been growing steadily. and it has been creating jobs -- over 6 million private-sector jobs. that work is not done. so the focus that the president has had was one that prioritized in the beginning the need to stop the bleeding, the need to avert a depression. and the actions that he took with congress in 2009 are widely viewed to have done that.
5:45 pm
and then to, as things began to stabilize, to go about the business of getting our fiscal house in order in a reasonable, balanced, common-sense way. and we have been doing that. as you know, it hasn't always been pretty, but over the past year and a half the president has signed into law now $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, a significant portion of that has been spending cuts. but it's been done in a way that has allowed the economy to continue to grow and create jobs not fast enough, not enough jobs, but it's been positive growth and positive job creation. i mean, i think -- i don't have the graph i had yesterday here, today, but the one that showed the dramatic decrease in the deficit in the last several years, the sharpest decrease in the deficit since world war ii. and then, what would happen based on our projections if the president's proposal to speaker
5:46 pm
boehner were implemented in terms of bringing that deficit down even further and stabilizing it below 3 percent of gdp. that's the approach we believe is right, because it's the best for sustained economic growth. >> to what extent was that, though, a powerful negative example for him? people's outlooks change from their experiences in the presidency. i have heard that it was a big spur for him to take this particular position. >> well, i don't want to characterize the president's thinking on what other countries have been doing. he's focused on what he believed was the right course for the united states, and believes that while we have significant work to do to continue to grow our economy and have it create jobs, that we made the right choices. and the results have borne that out. again, very much like the fact that we need to continue to focus on growing our economy, expanding the middle class, helping people who aspire to the middle class enter the middle class.
5:47 pm
and that's why that's his number-one priority. it's been the focus of his state of the union address. and it's why the debate we're having over this crazy thing called sequester or sequestration is so important, because the last thing we should be doing in washington is throwing a wrench in an economy that has been moving in the right direction. >> jay, two questions. first, just one month ago, secretary clinton said that the u.s. opposes any unilateral action seeking to undermine japan's administration -- >> i'm sorry, who said that? >> secretary clinton. >> hillary clinton is no longer secretary. >> yes, former secretary. >> oh, i see. >> yes, she said the u.s. will oppose any unilateral actions seeking to undermine japan's administration over diaoyu islands. and i just want to know, is that the firm position that the
5:48 pm
president will address? >> i haven't seen those comments. i would simply say that the president's meeting with the prime minister in just a little while here, and there will be a pool spray, and i think they both will have statements. so i don't want to get ahead of that. >> and also, on north korea. russia and china today -- they say they oppose any military intervention in north korea. what's the position of the white house? >> again, i would urge you to hear what the president has to say today. i think we got to go, because -- >> can i do just one quickly? >> yes, one more, kristen. >> can you comment on or confirm the reports that the united states is preparing to establish a drone base in northwest africa? >> i think those reports are fairly old, but i have no comment on that. thanks. >> week ahead, sir? >> i do have a week ahead. >> old but no comment? >> well, i remember -- i don't know, is this a new report? there was a report that i -- >> well, in light of -- >> -- didn't comment on the other day or i had a comment on. i'm not sure this is a new report. >> do you have a timeframe on
5:49 pm
it? >> i'll have to get back to you, kristen. i'm not sure what our -- >> -- that you're aware of. >> sure. on sunday, the president and first lady will welcome the national governors association to the white house for the 2013 governors dinner. the vice president and dr. biden will also attend. on monday, the president and the vice president will deliver remarks to the national governors association in the state dining room. the first lady and dr. biden will also deliver remarks. on tuesday, the president will travel, as you know, to newport news shipbuilding, a division of huntington ingalls industries in newport news, virginia -- region of my forebears -- to highlight the devastating impact that the sequester will have on jobs and middle-class families if congressional republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by march 1st. in just seven days, a series of automatic cuts could go into effect that would severely affect companies like this one that depend on the defense industry and its workers. this company has a supplier base in all 50 states, many of which are small businesses that rely
5:50 pm
solely on newport news shipbuilding for their business. the president will return to washington, d.c. later in the day. on wednesday, the president will deliver remarks at the unveiling of a statue of rosa parks at the united states capitol. in the evening, the president will deliver remarks at the business council dinner here in washington, d.c. and on thursday and friday of next week, the president will attend meetings here at the white house. thank you all. >> jay, real quickly, have there been any furloughs in the white house? has the chief of staff ordered any furloughs? is your staff going to be affected? >> i took this question. as you know and has been reported, the eop is affected by the sequester. and i'm sure that the omb has been working on that as it has with every agency. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> that white house briefing with lahood and jay carney focused almost entirely on
5:51 pm
sequestration. earlier today, we spoke with a capitol hill reporter on how congress is planning to deal with those cuts, as the march 1 deadline move -- looms. host: joining us live on the phone is just an sink. -- justin sink. what came out of these conversations? guest: congressional leaders have been tightlipped about what happened in those phone conversations. things do seem to be heating up a little bit. that certainly will increase next week, as congress comes back. the senate is likely to vote on both the democratic and republican version of the bill that would offset sequestration. having said that, it is not sure that either version will pass. it kind of sets up a dramatic week, but it week that is
5:52 pm
unlikely to come to its worst position on this issue. host: how engaged as the president and all of this? he has been on the campaign trail, campaigning on sequestration, but not meeting face-to-face with congressional leaders. guest: it has been a frequent complaint from congressional republicans. the president thinks he has high ground on this. airing an interview yesterday with al sharpton, he said 75% of americans agree that a sequester bill should include both spending cuts and new tax revenues, which is the president's preferred plan. so he thinks that by going out on interviews with local television networks, radio interviews, an event earlier this week at the white house with first responders that would be furloughed as part of the sequester, and next week going
5:53 pm
to virginia's newport news shipyard, to highlight how defense cuts would hit -- he thinks that if he stays in the bully pulpit, he as president can force congressional republicans into compromise. host: the president also pointing to a "usa today" poll which shows americans looking for a combination of spending cuts and additional taxes. republicans have said consistently that is off the table. if, as many people expect, sequestration does take effect next friday, who is in the drivers seat, the president or house republicans? guest: that is the big question. right now, both sides think that, as things go forward, they will hold the upper hand politically. it will be interesting. right away, there might not be obvious hits to the economy, but people are going to start
5:54 pm
mailing letters, saying that furloughs and layoffs could come. people are going to see less money in their medicare payments coming to doctors, and that sort of thing. as the real-world consequences hit, it will be, i think, interesting, and likely what drives the eventual deal, as political pressure ratchets up. host: walk us through the next six to seven days. tigress returning after the presidents' day recess. the president following -- traveling to newport, virginia, an area happy with pentagon contracts, military construction, and the navy shipyard. what are you looking for? guest: the most interesting thing will be debates in the senate. if democrats are able to win over enough republicans to get a compromise deal through, that will really upset the equation.
5:55 pm
it would be very much unexpected. but that is maybe our one chance to offer the sequester at this point. more likely, it will be a vote where democrats put a plan forward, it cannot garner enough republican support, and it fails. a republican plan is put forward and also does not pass. the democrats control the senate. then, republicans will say the democrats could not pass a plan. the democrats will say, republicans have one to do what? they blocked a compromise plan in the senate. there will be a lot of finger- pointing, a lot of gamesmanship. it will be interesting to see if one side or the other is able to garner a political advantage. host: justin sink, who is following this story for "the hill" newspaper. >> here is a look at our
5:56 pm
primetime schedules on the c- span network. starting at eight: 00, transportation secretary ray lahood briefs reporters on the impact of sequestration on his department, it could include major airport delays and reduction of staff. book tv looks at the civil rights movement. an american history tv visits museums across the country. all of that this evening, on the c-span networks. tomorrow, the national governors association holds its winter meeting in washington. the delaware and oklahoma governors serve as chair and vice chair of this year's meetings. we will give you their news conference, followed by discussions on employing people with disabilities, and the role states play in cybersecurity. >> at age 25, she was one of
5:57 pm
the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, while in her mid-40's, she was considered an enemy by the british, who threatened to take her hostage. jeter, she would become our first first lady, at age 57. meet martha washington. we will visit some of the places that influenced her life, including colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge, and philadelphia. be part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook posts. live on c-span. >> next, a look at efforts to strengthen gun control laws in america. from "washington journal" this is 50 minutes. host: yesterday, we focused on guns and the gun issue,
5:58 pm
including traveling to chantilly, virginia, the blue ridge arsenal gun shop. he heard from gun rights advocates. today, we want to hear from one of the shooting victims at virginia tech in 2007, somebody vice president biden met in hearings ahead of the white house announcement on january 16, the president's recommendations on ways to curb gun violence in the country. the vice president also in attendance. here is a portion of what he said. >> during the meetings we held, we met with a young man who is here today. colin goddard is here. where are you? he was one of the survivors of the virginia tech massacre. he was in the classroom. he calls himself one of the lucky seven. he will tell you he was shot four times on that day, and has three bullets still inside him. when i asked colin about what he thought we should be doing,
5:59 pm
he said, i am not here because of what happened to me. i am here because what happened to me keeps happening to other people, and we have to do something about it. colin, we will. i promise you, we will. >> the vice president, last month. we want to welcome colin goddard. enqueued for being with us. a shooting victim, now involved in the brady campaign. the us go back to april 2007. what happened? guest: it was a monday morning, french class at a dreadful early hour. got to class. things were normal. about halfway through, another girl in our class came late. this was one of the best students in the class. as she took her seat, we shed -- said, class is almost done. what gives? she said, there was a shooting in my dormitory.
6:00 pm
it was in lockdown. they finally sent i was free to go, so i came straight here. we looked at her like, what? a shooting on campus? we have not been told about it? the school year started with a shooting and they canceled classes quickly. we thought they let rachel go, so things must be all right. it was not five minutes after that when we first hear a loud bang, bang, bang, coming from seemingly are building. the were doing construction in a building adjacent to ours the whole semester. we chalked the noise is up to construction. a second later, it louder and closer. >> she turned off the lights and said, everybody under the desk and someone call 911. i pulled out my phone and dialed 911 and gave out the information i think someone is shooting a gun in the north hall and we saw
6:01 pm
bullets coming through our door and at that point everyone hit the floor. probably the longest 10-minute experience of my life. it felt like hours of constant gun fire and soon after that, i didn't see much of what was going on and i felt like someone had kicked me as hard as someone had kicked me, above my left knee and that feeling faded into this burning, stinging sensation and wetness and warmth and went numb from head to toe. at that moment i felt the physical sensation and it smelt like fireworks and i realized i just got shot and this is real. like i said, the rest of the time is kind of a blur. i was very conscious but i don't remember everything six years later. at the end, i had been shot three more times, twice in my
6:02 pm
hips and once in my shoulder. and you can tell the police had entered our building. my phone call was the only one made from one of the three rooms that had victims. and my -- when i left the phone go during the course of the shooting, a girl picked it up and remained on-line with the police and directed them to us. i expected him to engage the police, but the first thing i heard them say shooter down and the last gunshot was to himself in front of our classroom. we pulled out the injured ones and i heard yellow, red and then black tag, black tag and my classmates were dead. got me into the hospital. they drove me down to roanoke and spent six days in the hospital and couple months of
6:03 pm
physical therapy and went back to virginia tech and graduated just like every injured stupid. host: what about your french teacher? guest: one of the first ones shot and most of my close friends in the class were sitting next to me so the seven people out of 17 were survived were located in the back right corner of the room. and my french teacher was the first target. host: you then graduated and a couple of years later, you are watching on cnn another shooting that took place in upstate new york and what was your reaction to that? guest: april 3, 2009, almost two years after the shooting i had been involved and i learned how this situation i was involved with came to be, the school policies and how the school knew
6:04 pm
the student and how this person was allowed to buy a gun despite having a federal record that prohibited him from doing so. he had a mental ajudication. i couldn't watch other shootings up to that point but how i turned on the tv that morning and saw the story break, i couldn't turn away and i sat there and watched the news unfold throughout the course of the day and thought this is how the whole world saw it happen to me and now it happened to someone else. and we changed nothing. there have been no substantive progress in terms of gun policy and mental health policy and what gives. the end of that day was my tipping point and at that point i said i have to do whatever i can to address this issue and reduce the likelihood of what happened to me happens to someone else and i became
6:05 pm
involved with the brady campaign. host: the n.r.a. has argued if we had armed guards in the school or students had access to guns these could prevent mass shootings, your thoughts. guest: i try to think back to that morning and realize the only thing i knew that morning is i didn't know what was going on and i don't think we should be taking our first step at how to reduce these kinds of shootings at the last possible second. when i learned -- we don't do background checks on all gun sales in this country, i was shocked. there is far more we can do in advance to help someone with a dangerous mental illness and a gun coming together. i don't think america is going to shoot our way out of our shooting problem and we have to look at ways to get the people
6:06 pm
help the help they need and keeping dangerous people away from guns. host: we look at guns and gun violence and the debate that is front and center here in this country. did you return to the classroom? guest: i did. it was difficult. to sit in a classroom and not freak out when someone comes in late or slams the door. it was tough in the beginning but ultimately after that last year, i was comfortable again. i kind of think of an exit when i go into a public place. that is a peace that has forever changed, but ultimately i graduated a happy hokie. host: how did it change the virginia tech campus? guest: they expected people to transfer and not have a large incoming class, but the opposite
6:07 pm
happened. and my sister was going to go to a different school applied to virginia tech and chose it as her school and is there now. i know there is a whole new wave of students, not the ones that were there when i was there. it's kind of been a bad mark on our school but there are many good things that have spawned from that and we will be known what we have chosen to do after the fact. host: how are your injuries today? hopefully you have made a full recovery. guest: i have. i can do everything i did before. i went skiing in jackson hole, wyoming. but there are some people who can't do these things. wake up in a morning and see a
6:08 pm
different face and i feel fortunate and lucky to have the recovery i did which allowed me to get to the point where i can become an advocate and share my story with people like you and your viewers. host: why do you think we have had a series of mass chootings, whether it is virginia tech, aurora, colorado, newtown, connecticut? guest: a part of that deals with easy access to firearms. there are too many people who leave their guns accessible to children or those with dangerous mental illness and sell guns to strangers without background checks. we should change that and improve that. i wanted to work with the brady campaign and spend time up here in congress. i think there is a lot of factors. but i think the one that separates us from the modern
6:09 pm
industrialize fd world is our accessibility to firearms. host: these are 2011 numbers, the most recent we were able to obtain from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms which gives you the amount of firearms sold in any given year here in the u.s. pistol, 2.6 million. 2.3 million rifles. what do these numbers tell you? guest: we like to buy guns. it's part of our culture. i was army ro tmp c cadet and been hunting with my buddies, to the range and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. but there are simple changes like doing a background check on every gun sale will go a long way to keeping the second
6:10 pm
amendment for the people it was intended for and keeping guns out of the hands of people who have no business to have them in the first place. host: emily miller went through an extensive process of purchasing a gun here in washington, d.c., and to get a you gun in virginia is very easy. maryland is different from virginia and new york. pennsylvania is different from upstate new york or vermont. you can travel across these borders and see different laws in different states. guest: that plays part of the problem why guns that are used in crimes like washington, d.c., new york city or chicago don't come from that area, but come from places that are easier to acquire and shipped in through various means. that's why we need a federal standard when it comes to background checks so you can't go to the state or 30 minutes
6:11 pm
down the road and avoid a background check completely. that's why i'm here in d.c. and in congress trying to hopefully bring about some change with so many other good people and the missing piece has been engagement. we need people who are concerned about this to share their views to engage in the civic process. they don't think that we really care about this and that's why they haven't done anything and we need to change that paradigm. host: we are talking to colin goddard, a shooting victim in the 2007 incident that took place in april that year and alberta is on the phone from savannah, georgia. caller: god bless the young man going on which is -- with his life after such tragedy. i got a driving license and if i get stopped in the state of
6:12 pm
south carolina, they can pull up my records, no matter what they seem to think, they can do something like that with gun laws, when people go different places. they can pull up their record on the computer. host: thank you for the call. guest: she brings up a great point. before you are allowed to drive a car in this country, you have to be licensed, register your automobile and prove you are certified and competent with it. we don't do that with firearms at all. and i think quite often i hear the comparison between the deaths caused by firearms and deaths caused by automobiles. we have done a great deal in the reduction of deaths caused by automobiles and the deaths by firearms, we haven't done the same thing. we need better laws and policy with regulation and changing the social and cultural norms around like they did with drunk driving
6:13 pm
and not wearing a seat belt. host: question from one of our viewers, who gets to decide who is a dangerous person? guest: federal government has nine or 10 categories, people with felony records, people with domestic violence or restraining orders, those dishonorably discharged from the military. those who are a danger to themselves and others. but there are specific categories and if you fall into one of those, the f.b.i. is the organization that does the background check. they process your records and check them with police records and medical records to make sure you aren't lying on the form to buy a gun and they give the red light or green light and allow a gun sale to proceed or olympic it. host: the president outlined his agenda items, these are the bullet points, requiring
6:14 pm
background checks for all gun sales and a new ban on what they describe as military-style assault weapons and limiting magazines to 10 rounds and stronger punishing for drug trafficking and improving gun tracing data. with all of this, what is likely to pass? guest: at this point, everything is on the same page. we are trying to talk about every single part of the president's proposals and we realize there is not just one thing we can do or one solution to gun violence that is going to save everyone's life. we need laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. now it's initially we're hearing getting some movement in the senate and having hearings and we will see how the process goes down. but everything is equally as important. and not do just one thing but a comprehensive approach to this problem. host: since the virginia tech
6:15 pm
shootings, they have invested for warning systems, can you spell out what changes you saw from april of 2007 until september of 2007 through your final years as a senior at virginia tech. guest: school policies have been one area where we have seen the most improvement. the shooting at virginia tech was a game changer for universities and colleges when it comes to how they provide physical security on campus. namely, for example, they don't allow -- they put locks on doors now from the inside. changed the handle bars so you can't chain them up. they have emergency alerts and require them so they can be aware of what's going on. they actually run drills and they have threat assessment teams where they have members of faculty and members of law enforcement and mental health community involved in identifying problem students and making sure they get the help
6:16 pm
they need. we have done a good deal in terms of improving our school security but we have done nothing in improving our firearm security and making sure guns don't fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. host: seeing a record number of record new memberships to n.r.a., does that surprise you? guest: when you have high-profile events people are drawn to both sides and we have seen significant donation increases, significant numbers of chapters starting up and the outpouring of support we receive and two months later we are trying to get back to people. keep it up. that's great. i think when people see these events, they don't want them to happen to them. what happened at sandy hook kind of shook people's humanity at the core and see something like
6:17 pm
that happen to 20 students and six teachers. sandy hook was significant for a lot of people and because of that, we are having conversations two months later. host: people are tweeting to you and one tweeting, have you considered running for public office? guest: i have been up here for three years and it's a crazy city. i'm in for this a specific policy. that makes the most sense. i think it is so common sense. and so, i'm here in d.c. right now with that objective and when they achieve that, i'll go do something else. i would like to work in the foreign service overseas but the mountain in front of me is big enough. so i'm staying on focus. host: you faced multiple bullet wounds and still have some in your leg?
6:18 pm
guest: three bullets in pieces as it hit my pelvis and femur, it shattered. it was difficult to take them out. haven't been in much pain. i have skied and played volleyball last night and won. it has allowed me to engage in this work. host: have you felt different since the shooting? guest: one of the questions i get, how have you changed and most of my high school friends think i'm the guy. one thing i have noticed is movies and films, i kind of disconnect when i see, particularly with gun violence in films and how does the producer portray this scene, a bullet to the head. and you never see the person or
6:19 pm
do they make the intent to show how a bullet is when it enters a body and emotional movies get to me. and that's the one thing i have noticed the biggest change. but physically, i'm -- i have a couple of scars. host: dan is on the phone, republican line, from idaho. caller: good morning. i have a question for colin there. first of all, i'm sorry you had to go through such a horrible thing. any way, if you were there and would have been armed at that specific time, would you have manned up and tried to stop that guy from shooting anybody else? guest: i have thought that and natural to relive these situations in your head and i have done it every which way, to
6:20 pm
me saving or getting killed. i really didn't understand what was going on. the moment i had that clarity of the situation is when i was shot and my leg was broken. i don't think -- even with my rotc training i would have been effective. i think we can do a lot better getting guns out of the hands of people who don't need them. host: what was typically a routine day late in the semester, would you have thought about carrying a gun to the classroom? guest: no. college campuses is one of the safest places you can be. people between 18 and 24 who live on college campuses are the ones less to get hit by a bullet. if you live off campus, that percentage is higher. you aren't allowed to carry
6:21 pm
firearms. when we talk about mass shootings, we have to acknowledge the day-to-day snepts with firearms, with theft and confusion that can erupt from these kipeds of situations. we aren't having the debate. and it's going to make the average day to day college life much more dangerous. host: you talked about your french teacher who was killed in the shooting, what is her legacy to her husband? guest: you her husband is incredible. he has taken in the physical space of the that wing of norris hall and turned into peace center and taking something negative and turning it into something positive. he works and to create conflict resolution and violence prevention studies. it is phenomenal what he has done and helped create.
6:22 pm
i admire how he has been able to turn around something so bad and turn it to something so good. host: we are having a conversation with colin goddard, one of the shooting victims of the virginia tech shooting in april of twemp. kevin, independent line, from new york. caller: good morning. god bless you. god bless you as well. i'm arch bishop kevin mcdugeal and i have been -- people don't understand when you go into a place and i go into hospitals and i have seen mothers grabbing my hand, would you please pray to wake my son up. i live in new york, niagra
6:23 pm
false, and i stood there in emergency rooms. six people were shot at the same time and wouldn't let priests in to pray. there has got to be an end put to some of this. it has gotten to the point where, the gentleman called before, would you have manned up, what about the guy in the theater. it was dark. the only person that wouldn't have gotten injured was him. he had body armor on. guest: the caller here has seen the tough reality of gun violence in this country. you have been in the hospital rooms and seen the emergency care that has been provided and the hobble plight of mothers and families that go something like this. the more americans need to see what they have seen, we would have a different conversation.
6:24 pm
if people saw what i saw in my classroom or the classrooms in sandy hook looked like, the situation would be different. we talk about losing loved ones, these are people who have faded quietly in the night, whose bodies that are ripped apart. this is an intense situation and more people need to do the work that you are doing and see the reality of this problem and come to realize that there is change that we need. host: the issue of background checks, guns getting into the wrong hands and pointing out this figure from 1999 to 2011, 3,600 guns were sold to people who did not pass their background check, that according to the f.b.i. guest: it's a big problem. we have a background check that applies to some gun sales. and missing records like in the case of virginia tech. we need to make improvements in
6:25 pm
the system by making sure all the missing records are in that system and look at that state by state by state and states sending them over to the f.b.i. and we did that and make sure every record is in there and don't require everyone to go through that background check, what's the point. every sale has to come through the background check. those are so commonsense low-hanging fruit issues and that's where we need to come around and one of the things that should have been done years ago. host: you talk about the shooting in 2009 from new york. one of our viewers. 20 kinder garthners woke me up. was newtown a game changer? guest: we started with a shooting? ohio and the mass shooting in aurora, colorado, and oak creek, wisconsin and sandy hook was kind of the last big bang on the
6:26 pm
crescendo. and was the tipping point for a lot of people. and it's horrible in some ways and upsets me why it takes something so bad to get the conversation started, but here we are, let's go do something with us. host: ken from daytona beach, florida. caller: next time i hear someone say man up, i'm going to say grow up. first of all, the problem is the guns. i agree that the people that hold the guns should be getting the background check. 40% that don't have any type of background check. i worry about that. too many americans resolve issues with gun violence and they're not all criminals, there are people who can't control impulses, domestic violence perpetrators. we have a stand your ground law
6:27 pm
in florida. kind of like man up. colorado has one make my day. talk about childish. florida has turned into the wild west. people shoot if they think they are threatened and they use the stand your ground law. it has to stop. i worry about the children. you read about children who accidentally injury themselves or kill another. the conservative media and fox were outraged with a new york newspaper published the names of gun permit holders. i'm a grandmother, i wouldn't allow my child to visit a home that might have a law-abiding but irresponsible gun owner. thank you for taking my call. guest: the caller brings up a lot of good points. the laws that we have state by state and the general culture around firearms, it's very
6:28 pm
aggressive and unfortunately, it doesn't help us promote this idea that we are all americans and we all live together, community, neighbors. after these instances, people say, get a gun to protect yourself and that's it. doesn't promote this sense of community or we are all in this together. no, if you have an issue, i need to help you in some way, not just ignore you and say i'm not going to worry about that. i don't think that's a good mentality or healthy for our country. splitting too many of us up and we need to be coming together to solve these big crucial problems. there's no one package is going to work. when we change the laws, it will make an impact. and unless we change the social norms and making sure the guns are stored safely, i think we'll see a great reduction in the number of people shot and
6:29 pm
killed. host: did your shooting affect your parents? guest: my parents are peace corps volunteers and always told me to leave the world in a better place than you found it and i think now this work improving gun policy, advocating with the brady campaign, i'm doing my little piece to leave the world in a better place. they have allowed me to move forward from this horrible event and try to some positive way to engage. host: you talk about hollywood and couple of comments from twitter and joe said he is on something with regard to hollywood, are you taking aim at the movie industry? guest: we need to look at how violence in our films and our movies and games and our music is affecting our population,
6:30 pm
especially young people. we don't need to take creativity away. young people shouldn't be exposed to the content they are exposed to ffment parents who don't monitor their children who play these games, that's not healthy. we glorify guns and glorify being a hero. i understand everybody wants to be that but in reality we need to realize, a twitch of the finger can end the life of a grown man and we have to take that most seriously. host: did you see the face of the shooter? guest: i did not. i took a glimpse in front of the classroom, cacky pants, two holes ters and because of the way that person was walking in our classroom and looked like he
6:31 pm
was going to exit and my first thought it was a cop. but instead of walking out the door, he walked and turned down our row and i realized that's not who it was. host: why did he target norris hall? guest: i do know that he had classes in there on the tuesday and thursday cycle and was familiar with the building and layout and one of the few buildings on campus that had three, very few big entrances and exits and was able to chain them up before he began shooting and not only stopped people from fleeing and stopped the police entering and had to find a maintenance door. there are only three major entrances and exits to the building. this was a much more controlled environment that i think he was familiar with and that's my
6:32 pm
opinion of why nor is hall was chosen. host: nancy is on the phone, republican line. caller: thank you very much for c-span and mr. goddard. mr. goddard, you have such good visibility, i would like to run an idea by you, being a grandmother and i shudder every time i see gun-free zone. i don't know why it was badly interpreted. this means you, does president mean us. why has it always been interpreted wrong? i just thought this morning i do know a sign painter and get signs painted right under the gun-free zone that says, this means you, not us. and let schools handle it any
6:33 pm
way they can. small town in our state, i forget the name, they are going to have the police department head quartered in an elementary school, that sounds great if they want to do it that way. but i can think of the administrators where a few people, very qualified people could be armed. not the whole classroom. not your whole classroom atlanta virginia tech, but schools handle them. we have to clarify this sign out there that gun-free zone, that means you, not us. host: former school board member, did you debate these issues? caller: we never did. no one ever thought of something so horrible.
6:34 pm
i go through a little town, big school district, but i always thought this would be a real problem -- nobody ever heard of the town -- if a terrorist attacked there, this would unglue the whole nation and surely it happened. another thing i would like to run by you, clustering our schools, all in one block, isn't that nice and tidy. frankly, i think that's terrible. host: thank you for sharing your story and comments. guest: he brings up a good point. people are allowed to carry firearms practically everywhere in this country. there are certain places like schools, churches should be allowed to decide what the policy is. i think it's good to see in the president's package there is more money to train security
6:35 pm
guards where it's needed. it makes sense. but we can do a better job that we are currently not doing, namely background checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. that should be the first thing that we take care of. because background checks don't prevent any law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun. it is good for them. someone with a felony record, restraining order or mental illness, that information needs to get flagged and the sale gets stopped. it is difficult to make any progress and prevent saving lives. host: would background checks have stopped the virginia tech shooter? guest: he took two background checks. bought one gun from a store down the road from us and one from the internet. and once he was committed against his will, was in front
6:36 pm
of a judge and adjudicated to be a a danger to himself, that didn't let him get a gun. he was ultimately deciding factor of why virginia did not send his medical over. and something as simple as one agency transferring to another agency, background check had all the records in there. and i think improving background checks would go a long way. host: another part of this debate, front page -- the laws
6:37 pm
that would be imposed if you purchased a gun and then gave that gun to someone else and uses that gun violently. these straw purchaseses might b proposal that we are -- the law that would be imposed if you purchased a gun and then gave that gun to someone else and uses that gun violently. these straw purchaseses might be more difficult to prosecute. >> it is difficult to track and prosecute. we have no federal gun trafficking statutes on the books and that's one of the pieces in the president's proposal that we are hoping to see come to pass. but i know half -- creating new laws to enforce the laws on the books. they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms and enforcing that law, making sure a background check is done. there are other -- the president's proposal is comprehensive and not screws one thing or another and we have to look at every avenue to see a reduction this the number of people shot and killed. host: independent line. richard. caller: i just had a couple of points i figured i would run through quickly. and if you can bear with me.
6:38 pm
one of the things that doesn't come up very often all of these shootings have happened in gun-free zones and a great number of people whose lives have been saved because they had guns and you don't often hear that on the media also. chicago, new york and boston, which have some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, have the most violence and i guess i would finish off by pointing out that a brief summation of a few countries we have heard of that passed strict gun control laws and senator feinstein said she wants to remove guns from the people except police officers and military. germany, china have done this which led to the biggest amounts of mass murder in the 20th
6:39 pm
century. we should keep in mind during the debate that the initial reason we have the right to bear arms was to prevent tyranny in government just to make sure that's not lost among a very emotional issue. guest: i have heard comments that richard made, made before. certainly the shooting in tucson, arizona was not in a gun-free zone or the shooting that happened in las vegas didn't happen in a gun-free zone but happens everywhere. the conversation that we're talking about, background checks for example, making sure those are done on everybody gets ex trap lated to the nth degree. and that's not the conversation
6:40 pm
which is not what any of this legislation will do. it is unconstitutional to do that. you cannot ban guns and that's a great decision for us because it removes the extreme end point of everyone taking people's guns away. let's talk about what we can do, the middle ground, background checks on gun sales, good way to move forward. host: vice president in a facebook town hall meeting, his advice, buy a shotgun. guest: he speaks in a candid manner and it shows that the administration and even the vice president is not opposed to people owning firearms. he understands that. there is legal, lawful gun owners and no problem with that and most of them have told us what we support and background checks on all gun sales. seven out of 10 n.r.a. members
6:41 pm
support that. nine out of 10 americans support that. the reasonable middle ground that we are imagining consensus on and how we are going to move forward. host: first is the semi-automatic weapons, looking at gups in america and pointing out this figure when it comes to overall u.s. deaths among semi-automatic rifles. guest: statistics speak for themselves. small weapons that are easily concealable have been used in more crimes. we should look at the types of weapons we make for military and sell to the general public. i was shocked that i was able to
6:42 pm
guns that i thought had no place on our streets but built for war zones. we go a long way to stop shootings but the lethality. ar-15 used in aurora, that is a military weapon. that shouldn't be in civilian hands. to shoot 100 rounds without stopping has no common purpose for self-defense or hunting or sport shooting. that is an accessory to kill as many human beings as possible and we need to take a hard look. host: final question you were enroute to roanoke hospital that april morning, what was going through your mind? guest: just trying to graduate and find some sense of normalcy. everything had turned upside down ands as much as you want to
6:43 pm
focus on the negative, to you have to be positive and thins won't be the same, but with some work and with some hard times you will find a way to find some sense of security again, sense of purpose, comfortableness in this country and now i think with the advocacy work i have chosen to do, it is a way to continue therapy and continue talking about this issue and getting it off my chest as well as taking this bad experience and channeling it towards something good. it wasn't just what happened to me, but because i kept seeing it happening to other people. i'm here to ask people to help me, to help us get this done so we can see some substantive change in this country. and in your classroom, how many students were in the class, how
6:44 pm
many were shot and how many were killed. guest: 17 people and my teacher and seven people still alive. 32 people were killed. 19 injured from gun fire and three or four injured jumping out of the second-story window and many, many more what i considered emotionally injured who witnessed everything but physically remained unscathed and it changed the community. for anyone who deals with hardship in their life or turns their life upside down, you don't have to remember those horrible events, what is a better definition is how you choose to pick yourself back up and what you choose to do from those days forward. that reflects better on who you are as a person. when you put it something towards positive, it's a good
6:45 pm
example and leave the world in a better place. host: colin goddard, appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, transportation secretary ray lahood briefs reporters on sequestration which could have airport delays and reduction of air trosk control staff. book tv, civil rights movement. and c-span3, u.s. historical sites. next, african american activists speak out. we hear from a father whose son was killed in a gang shootout. this was an hour and 15 minutes.
6:46 pm
>> good morning everyone. welcome members of the media. our distinguished guests and panelists here assembled this morning. in support of the second amendment. today, this morning, we have our speakers lined up and are going to be commenting on this important issue as it relates to their communities, as relates to our country, as relates to the policies and procedures in our nation. this morning, i'm going to speak for our chairman of the board for the center for urban renewal and education, kent blackwell who couldn't be here and i'll read his statement for you now, with a little help of technology.
6:47 pm
the second amendment is a fundamental right enshrined in that sacred list of liberties in our constitution that we call the bill of rights. it is right along side the freedom of speech, the freedom of religious faith, the right that no person can ever make you a slave, the right that no state can deprive us of our rights or equal protection of the law and the right to vote. it is a right of self-defense. in 1791, that right was adopted as the second amendment as a right of the people to ban together to collectively defend themselves against public violence, meeting government tyranny. in 1868, that right was extended to the 14th amendment to also defend against government oppression by state or local governments. and by 1791, through 1868 to
6:48 pm
2013, it was and is also the right to defend yourself against private violence. the violence perpetrated by criminals. yes, the framers of the constitution wanted people to be able to hunt. and that is an essential part of our cultural fabric as a people. it is a rich part of our heritage, part of self-reliance, a way of passing down our values. it is also -- it also provides precious time to spend time for fathers and sons and increasingly mothers and daughters. the right to bear arms is also for competition, for sporting and also for collectors. but as the supreme court recognized just five years ago, it was for the right of self-defense against some future government that would refuse to stand for re-election and would hold on to power by military
6:49 pm
might and against lawlessness and heartless folks who would victimize others. that those who founded our nation made this right part of the supreme law of the land forever trumpping every president, congress and court that would ever hold office in the united states. that right to protect one's life and liberty is a god-given right. it is a gift from god, not a grant from government. the government does not give us this right, just as the declaration of independence makes clear, government does not give us any of our inalienable rights. instead, it is the role of government to recognize the right god has given to each of us to respect those rights and to secure those rights. that's what the second amendment does. and it is an essential right for
6:50 pm
every american citizen who is law abiding and peaceable regardless of skin color, geography, education or socioeconomic status. it is easy to understand how the second amendment relates to the cultural of a norman rockwell painting with a father with his son walking through the woods with shotguns and rifles hunting for ducks and deer. the core rights protected by the second amendment to protect yourself against public and private violence is just as real for americans of all races and ethnic groups. we thank god that we no longer are in days where we have to fear government violence. with a senged amendment right to resist a tyrannical right to be the right of a black man in the deep south in 1870 to protect himself from a mob posse which a sheriff would look the other way
6:51 pm
or be led by a local sheriff's deputy. but the right against private violence is even more important for so many black americans today. a black man or woman in his or her 20's should be face and secure in their apartment or going to work. a black father has a right to protect his family and a home. or too often, and this is sad because it is harming to many black children, it is a single mother. she has every right to demand that she be able to protect herself and her family. the only clear equalizer between a striving young mother or grandmother and a full grown man breaking into her home is a firearm that she knows how to responsibly store and use. i stand with you today in the protection of our second amendment rights. sincerely ken blackwell, chairman, board of directors, center for urban renewal and
6:52 pm
education. thank you. [applause] next to the podium, i would like to introduce someone near and dear to me and all members of our organization, many of you know who she is and how she functions in media, star parker, founder and president of center for urban renewal and education, otherwise known as cure. >> thank you, lonnie poindexter who is our director for outreach. we appreciate the comment from our board chairman ken blackwell and he is a board member of the n.r.a. as well as a former mayor of the city of cincinnati. this issue is important to him as well. greetings, thank you, good morning. i'm the founder and president of cure. a conservative think tamping that promotes solutions to fight
6:53 pm
poverty. this has called this black history press conference today to bring attention to the importance of defending the right of all americans guaranteed under the second amendment of our constitution to bear arms. thank you for being here. we are gathered here today to provide a forum for black leaders from the world of politics and public policy in washington, from the business community and from the clearing to express our deep concern about efforts currently under way to limit our god-given and constitutional right of self-defense. cure is based in washington, d.c.,, i'm a resident of california, thus senator feinstein the author of one of the proposals to advance government control over gun ownership is my representative. cure is hosting this press conference with the hope that the information we share today will serve as a reminder to senator feinstein and to all other united states senators that black history is arrive with government demands to strip
6:54 pm
away our constitutional rights. we are standing here today because we believe it is our duty as african-american citizens to join together and challenge the gun proposals currently being considered on capitol hill. two points, number one, the call for universal background checks as qualifiersfor constitutional rights and painful memories of jim crow laws. a substantial body of research already shows that gun control empowers criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens. regarding black reality, blacks are the least armed, least protected and defended and most assaulted citizens in our country. according to a recent survey, 42% of whites and 16% of blacks say they have a pistol, rifle at home. can anyone who god has blessed with a brain actually think that universal background checks in which one past legal infraction
6:55 pm
will not result in even fewer law-abiding black men from obtaining a weapon to protect their families. and what about black women? according to research published in the british journal of sigh ki at try at bowling green state university, studies show 81% higher risk of mental health problems with women who have had abortion. will it be a question on the background check application? number two, the call for banning specific guns at senator feinstein has proposed is prop attic as it puts too much power in the hands of politicians and the law establishment which can't always be trusted. 40% of whites compared with 24% of blacks said they have great deal of confidence in the local police to enforce the law. law-abiding black citizens live under siege in crime-ridden
6:56 pm
communities, yet somehow they are supposed to buy the logic giving more power to those in law enforcement already charged with maintaining order but don't, while stripping away the freedoms of those who do obey the law will make us better off. one question the gun control advocates are never challenged to answer for the most vulnerable in our country when they are moving to promote gun control, how do you fake a gun from the underground, a raceist cop or tyrannical government. taking arms from law abiding-many, black slamb and jim crow history should serve as a call that america caps of all backgrounds must fight this current round and all attempts at gun control. this black history month press conference is dedicated to the tradition of black history legend frederick douglass, a runaway slave and orator, stated
6:57 pm
on this issue that, a man's right rests in three boxes, ballot box, jury box and cart ridge box. we are pleased by representatives from all across this country who have come here at their own expense to share their thoughts with us today. we have the opportunity for four to five of them to make a presentation here. we are pleased that media has come and we will be available to answer your questions after these presentations. i will call on them and have media ask questions and then you can talk to the rest who have gathered. we will take a small break and go for lunch and do a round table discussion on this extremely important issue. but that particular meeting is closed to the press. first joining us is dr. ken hutcherson, a former american
6:58 pm
football line backer in the nfl for the dallas cowboys who is a pastor in the great state of washington. doctor. [applause] >> thanks so much, star. it is a privilege to be here today. i'm going to tell you how important it is to me to be here. i have had cancer for 12 years. i have had bone cancer for 4 1/2 years. if you ever dealt with anyone with bone cancer or know anything about cancer, that is a very, very difficult time and the pain oftentimes is unbearable, but i came from seattle to be here because this issue is a lot more important than my health. it is a lot more important than my church. it's a lot more important than just myself. now i think it's important that
6:59 pm
i was shocked last month -- night that i may have to change my mind about something and that is when i heard several african american pro-bole nfl greats came out and said we should work on changing the second amendment. they are supporting the president's ways of going after the second amendment. what i have to change my mind is that i think it's probably true there was brain damage in the nfl. [laughter] >> i'm going to tell you how important the constitution is and we should be very care tl about changing anything, especially the second amendment. all of you in here understand the importance of light. light gives us ways that we can step correctly. the constitution to the united states is the light. it allows us to walk
7:00 pm
consistently and constantly. now you may not appreciate that example unless you understand the importance of light. do you understand the first thing that god created was light. light. . .right cajon light started at 183,000 miles per second. you can say whatever you want. i think the earth as a young person -- is a young earth. genesis tells me like a traveling over 7000 years ago. capets leaders, we need to be obedient to god and god days
7:01 pm
protect that which he has given the united states to them who believe in his word. if we turn this light off, all of us up here would disappear because he cannot see, you cannot walk in the circumstance of what is true. light travels at 186,000 mps, if you and multiplied by 6 then by 60 -- and has been doing this since genesis. why are we wanting light to change? why would we think about changing the constitution? why would be about touching the second amendment?
7:02 pm
if you want to do it in a day, will supply by 24. -- multiply by 24. doing it since genesis 1:3 has not slowed down. i have never heard of light say i did not travel as fast because people cannot understand times change. could we are not going to change our thoughts on what is right -- we are not going to change our thoughts on what is right and what needs to be done. how about how much light travels
7:03 pm
in a year? you have to put your mind together to multiplied that number. -- to multiply that number. i know a lot of you out there are saying there is no way a black american figure that out of we are going to check his numbers. i guarantee it does. it is so important for all of us understand light has been traveling that many miles since genesis 1:3, being obedient to god. we have not been here as long as life has but we do know what it reveals. this is what i have questions for all of you listening. how long, how many children have to die before we come to the conclusion that the issue about the second amendment is not about protecting kids, it is about changing the constitution.
7:04 pm
how many children have to die before we come to common sense which biya lost much in america today. how many of us will allow children to die to put signs in front of our schools to invite people to come in and kill them? let me tell you what i am talking about. how many of you put in front of your house is sign that says gun-free zone? how many of you put in front of your house i have diamonds, gold, silver, critics and the artifacts and i am not home. my guard dogs are locked up and i will not be home until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon. still we want to put gun-free schools.ront of our
7:05 pm
how many black children have to die before you care? getk on black crime don't any front page news but you get sandy hook. and what happens? everybody is in an uproar. we have had 10 times as many african-american children killed with guns. how many children have to die, black and white, for us to come to the conclusion most of the gun violence is in cities with the most gun control. when are we going to put some common sense in there? crevice the men at the as [indiscernible] how many children have to die before we get these lunatics off the streets?
7:06 pm
but because of their privacy, cannot do anything about it. often families struggle to get a institutionalize. how many children have to die before we realize that a bad man with a gun can only be stopped and bought a good man with a gun? thank you. [applause] >> thank you, pastor. i am so pleased you travel so far to be here with us today. we have people from all over the country who have traveled. next we have a local here in washington, d.c. foundsrry alford, the co =- of the national black chamber of commerce. he represents people all across the country. his chamber represents 2 million black businesses in the united states.
7:07 pm
they handle a variety of issues. he is not a stranger in the halls of congress and even consulting sometimes with the white house. >> thank you. good morning. i am harry alford, i represent 2.1 million black owned businesses in the united states. we have 140 chapters in the u.s. in 95 chapters elsewhere. our business owners, many of them have retail stores, restaurants, cash operations. our previous board chair has a concrete plant in new orleans. after katrina wiped out everybody, his business was booming but he had to have brinks truck come to a company twice a day and had two of his employees armed. he was not going to let his
7:08 pm
business go down because of some bad guys. i want to thank the lord for our constitution. i also want to thank the nra for its legacy. it was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect free slaves from the kkk. they would raise money, buy arms, shall the slaves how to use those arms of protect their families. many of us may not have been here today if it were not for the nra. rodney king showed an interesting model when the riots started in la and rioters got to korea town, the violence stopped. because every mel corrine has issued with those stores stood
7:09 pm
outside, they drew a line -- because every male korean with those stores stood outside, they drew a line. it is a right. you have scorpions, diamond head rattlers, coyotes, mountain lions. one of my neighbors lost his stock to a mountain lion that came into his backyard. -- lost his dog to a mountain lion that came into his backyard. a gun with a scared of a lion. what if you are living in florida and the python snake is in your yard between you and your child or pet? what are you going to do? god gives you the right and the
7:10 pm
constitution does to protect that child or your animal or your house. louisiana, alligators show up. you have to deal with it. if you are a farmer, you have to deal with these things. but what is going on here in this town is a mind game. this is a diversion to keep you off the thought of this poor economy which generates crime. this is about crime and is trying to divert your attention away from it because they cannot create jobs. i have two quotes from people who know what they're talking about. bruce weinberg, ohio state university -- but officials can pass tougher citizen laws and take other steps to reduce crime
7:11 pm
but there are limits to how much these can do. we found that a badly premarket has a profound impact on the crime rates -- that a bad labor market has a profound impact on the crime rates. this causes more unemployment which causes more crime. a spiral situation from which it is difficult to recover. what we need to do is create jobs, businesses. small businesses create less crime. though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i fear no evil because i and the meanest and fierce as person walking in the valley. -- and fiercest person walking
7:12 pm
into the valley. >> thank you. and a reminder of the los angeles riot. you are right, that islam is of most of the violence stop, when they reached korea town. -- you are right, most of the violence stopped when they reached korea town. our next speaker is a pastor of a baptist congregation here in washington. he has begun rights activists since 1991. kenn blanchard was one of the first black fire arms inspectors in the cia. >> good morning. in honor of black history, i want to introduce you to two people -- my mother and my grandmother. mary from virginia was my first
7:13 pm
instructor and the fire arms. my grandmother had a loaded shotgun next to her with a burning stove all my life. it was secured only by we knew if we want to mess with the shotgun, we have to go through her. it secured the children, 30 of us who went there for refuge. we went there during summer vacation. granma taught us a lot. she also had the shotgun and remember when there was a strange pickup truck early in the morning that showed up at the house. all the kids said there is -- there are some white guys coming out of the pickup truck. she grabbed the shotgun, moved to the screen door and she said
7:14 pm
the morning. they said the morning, we wanted to make sure beebe some deer on our way back -- to m ake surew e -- to make sure we gave you some deer on the way back. they could see she had some that in her hand. that make a difference in my life. you can talk the talk but you have to walk the walk sometimes. sometimes you do not have to fire a shot, you just have to carry yourself the right way. i learned that lesson when i got into the city and my mother said you were a country at one time but now we have to work in a system and you don't hunt here in the city and they talk about guns, . i had to remind my mother, we have the same mom. remember the shotgun. a protector, it
7:15 pm
was not by my own doing. if it had a guard on the back of it, i have done it,. one time i stood outside the but of a president reagan -- outside the bedroom of president reagan. i am just a shepherd. a shepherd would defend his flock in go into harm's way. i became the shepherd of hunters and fishermen and those who do not easily come to church. i will go to where the people are. they said i am glad you're here. help us understand how the world is making us seem like bad guys. i said as the hunter, you have a special spot in the world. you are conserving things. you are making the whole
7:16 pm
ecosystem work. they say if you look at the news, we are the bad guys. only because they do not know. they are using the lack of responsibility and the false god. we have a responsibility problem. no one was to take responsibility for anything. and we want to make somebody else our god. when a politician steps forward and says i can save your children, you cannot save my child but somebody believes that person has the right to do anything. i am honored to be here as yet another shepherd to say trust in the only true god. he is a provider of your safety. he who taught david who trained his hands for war. there is a time and place for
7:17 pm
everything. we have to make sure we denied give too much power to those who really have none -- sure we do not give to much power to those who really have none. politicians are not dots. tick them off the pedestals. they cannot -- politicians are not gods,. take them off the pedestal. it is your responsibility. what god gives you, you are stored up. sometimes you have to go into harm's way. and you cannot do it with harsh words and empty promises. thank you/ [applause] >> our next presenter as from the gun free state of new york. he is joining us as the president of core, the congress for racial equality.
7:18 pm
it is one of the oldest civil rights organizations in the country. nigel, thank you. [applause] >> thank you for putting this important press conference together today. i will not be nearly as eloquent as the speakers i came before me. a lot has been asserted here. let me briefly say that gun- control for black americans has been about people control. it sprouts from racist soil. be it after the or during the dead scott case -- the dread scott case where black humanity was not recognize. the racist chief justice said we cannot allow the law to recognize the humanity of this
7:19 pm
individual because he will be able to keep and bear arms. when a lot of democratic controlled segregationist governments after the civil war attempted to dney black men and women -- deny black men and women their freedom, they instituted coats largely to deny the second amendment. today in our urban centers, and it's in black folks may not be the victims of the klan or white racism but we are the victims of merciless criminals that are armed and do not give a darn about gun-control laws. how dare you talk about taking away a constitutional right. g the second amendment is. uns. it's about freedom -- the second
7:20 pm
amendment is not about guns. it is about freedom and liberty. many of us gun rights advocates -- i want to thank harry alford about as powerful words about the nra. and the history, to establish by former union soldiers the were disturbed southerners could shoot straighter and better than northerners. the reality is for me, it is more than the philosophies around the second amendment. it is personal. i lost two brothers to violence. one in 1968, one in 1982. they were murdered by criminals who did not pay attention to gun laws. they were murdered in
7:21 pm
communities, the south bronx and harlem, in cities that have the strictest gun control laws. i asked myself what if decent people in those communities were my brothers were killed had the opportunity to step the in and confirm that bad criminal with the gun with a good person with a gun? they might be alive today. thank you all for this important support for freedom and liberty. [applause] >> our next presenter is from georgia, dr. deborah honeycutt. she is a board certified family medicine physician and medical director of clayton state university health clinic. she serves as the georgia state
7:22 pm
delegate to the american academy of family physicians commission on education. >> thank you. i am from the great state of georgia but i was born in chicago. and now i live just a stone's throw from kennesaw, georgia. chicago, one of the strictest air gun law areas and in our country, murder rate off the charts. kennesaw, georgia, where every able-bodied head of household as mandated by law to have a fire arm for protection of their families. very low. in the last 20 years, there have
7:23 pm
been three murders there. but i speak to you from the standpoint of a position today -- of a position today. the second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the securities of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. as a physician when considering a patient's problem, i take seriously my pledge to first do no harm. anyone who needs a doctor, and they want to be cared for by a doctor who takes seriously that pledge. do no harm. those who serve in our united
7:24 pm
states government take a pledge to uphold the constitution of these united states. despite the cdc reports that in 2010, fire arms were used to take the lives of almost 32,000 americans the homicide, suicide or unintentional shootings and despite some recent highly publicized yet tragic murders committed with firearms, constitutionally protected rights must remain. obesity is a serious problem in america, increasing and the prevalence, affecting millions and causing 300,000 deaths a year in our country. president obama has voiced his concern regarding obesity,
7:25 pm
noting initiatives like let's move and the myplate guidelines. solutions aimed at motivating people and supplying them with knowledge and opportunity to make the best choices for their health. we would not think of enacting regulations that outlaw eating or eating certain foods or that dictate how much food a person can just because some people are obese in this country. banning guns or infringing the gun rights of citizens does not and will not keep criminals are those intent on harming others from acquiring and using guns. the persons who want to infringe upon our constitutional right to keep and bear arms must be made to understand that they are not keeping their pledge to uphold
7:26 pm
our constitution. so i asked our president and the congress, do no harm. do no harm to these citizens. upholder pledge, just like i as a physician up hold my pledge. a poll the constitution. don't and french -- uphold the constitution. don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. [applause] >> thank you. our next presenter is reverend william owens, the founder of god, guns, and the constitution. cure works closely with his coalition of african-american pastors and we will be hosting
7:27 pm
regional town halls in black communities across the country on this important issue. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to give honor to god and his son jesus christ. honor to those who spoke before me. also honored to my wife of 27 years and my four children. they are all out the door. i am founder of warriors arise ministries, spiritual warfare. we are engaged in a great spiritual conflicts in our nation theory the current trajectory in which the obama administration is leading our country is evident through policy. policy being executed sometimes
7:28 pm
with executive orders. it should call every leader to rise and speak truth to power. to forsake this highest call is to surrender our families and our faith. we have no option but to draw the line in the sand and stand against this and any eric it effort to tamper with our constitutional right to bear arms. on the prairie second of this year, -- on february second of this year, i stood and but of the calf and it in front of the capitol building and held a press conference on this issue. -- i stood in front of the capitol building and held a
7:29 pm
press conference on this issue. john 8:32 says you shall know the true and it shall set you free. i want to look at this issue. history will testify of what is to come. the truth of god's hand was upon christopher columbus and in such a way that he declared these words --the working out of all things was entrusted by our lord to each person. but it happens in conformity with his solemn will even though he gives advice to many. i found our ord well disposed towards my heart's desire. who doubts this elimination was from the holy spirit? with marvelous rays of light, he
7:30 pm
consoled me, the sacred scriptures in clear testimony encouraging me to proceed. they it blamed me with a sense of great urgency -- they enflamed me with a sense of great urgency. were it not for god upon the heart of ths man, -- this man, we would not be standing here today. the truth is it was the guns or muskets and swords of the regiment that faught -- fought off the efforts of the british to take away their armor. that name was given to them by the british, the black robe regimen. both god holding our hands and our gun in the other made the constitution possible.
7:31 pm
so that you have god, guns, and the constitution. you can't have one without the other. it is the same constitution that will ensure we keep tyranny ed debate. -- tyranny at bay. anyone who claims christianity's, please tell american people why we should and why some do deny the history of god and therefore the historic context of guns. should we be solid to a political agenda contrary to the truth that god, guns, and the constitution work together to enable us what we enjoy today? this current administration is far from the truth. this agenda is becoming more and more obvious to all. it is a distraction. it is an excuse to carry out an
7:32 pm
ideology that is more evident every day that goes by that is anti-american. when you go against the second amendment, you cannot be more anti-american. guns would not be necessary without her god. we call upon americans, all americans, to agree upon this -- without god, guns, and the constitution, america's end will come with haste when they change our constitution, they will take our guns and when they take our guns, they also seek to take our god. that is when americans will fight back. we faults --we fought with
7:33 pm
the help of god so it cannot come as a surprise americans will fight when our freedom is at question. what mother would not fight to protect her child? what nation would not fight to protect its existence? i say to those who claim the christian faith, their claim of christianity demands you to speak to these issues as christ would. we are doing these town hall meetings. our next one is in dallas on march 9. we are determined to bring pastors, leaders together to discuss these issues. people are coming out because they are concerned. i want to thank star parker for putting this on.
7:34 pm
our second amendment is ours to keep and we must defend it and ensure that no power takes it away. thank you very much. [applause] >> our final speaker of this session pastor bruce rivers from the great state of california. he is the father of a child who was murdered by gang members and he wanted to put a face on what urban centers are dealing with in particular to this issue. >> [applause] >> and the church said amen. i no politician. i'm just a preacher. you invite me to the party, you have to let me get away i dance. i want to thank god for this
7:35 pm
opportunity to stand up for freedom. i want to thank star parker cor the -- for the cure pastor's network. i want to echo the words of frederick douglass -- a man's rights rest in three boxes -- the ballot, jury and cartridge box. upon hearing a lot got appointed speakers -- hearing from the god appointed speakers before me, i am humbled today. i grew up on the monterey peninsula. the adopted son of a navy veteran father and civil service mother. i went to college, graduated, traveled, and finally settled down. god blessed me with a great lady, two sons and a daughter.
7:36 pm
time passes, seasons change, people. -- people grow up and the community i lived in changed. seaside, california, a large african american population existed and we have one of a time growing up there. costa worked to 1993 -- fast forward to 1993, after a family trip, lifemy so turned upsidesn was gunned down in front of my house by men who had criminal records and automatic weapons. one of the guns was found on the day of my son's funeral. due to our total disregard god's foundation, nothing was done. no arrests were made until 20
7:37 pm
years later. you get home and read genesis 4. the word of god teaches us about the first murder. cain's sacrifice was unacceptable then he got angry with god and god insisted he do the right thing. cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with god. sounds like our country. there were no guns available then. the bible does not say cain had the knife or a gun, the point wastghe evil in his heart the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon. god did not ban rocks or
7:38 pm
knives then but he did ben is the murderer. -- but he did ban the murderer. let me be clear. there is no such thing as an assault weapon. these are just high caliber guns. the ar in the ar 15 does not stand for assault rifle. instead for the company that made it. -- it stands for the company that made it. i am -- i have asked myself this question -- with the proposed regulations i have been reading on the table today, would they have saved my child from being gunne dod down >?
7:39 pm
no. the criminal who had the gun did not obey the law. the guns they had were illegal. the kiling went -- killing went on for close to three years in our community. we lost nine children. children who the summer before were all in my living room playing video games. has forgiveness,? -- has forgiveness come? yes. what stopped the killing? it was prayer. we went out on the street corner and stood 72 hours on the anniversary of my son's death. 3 days standing and praying.
7:40 pm
and the killionng stopped. there is a plan to force me and you to live apart from our god by agreeing with everything contrary to his standard. god, when he dealt with cain, did not register rocks a put a background check on those with their farm equipment or whatever cain used to kill his brother. instead he dealt with the criminal. i remember going with my uncle hunting at big sur, chasing those pigs and rabbits. i remember my father kicking me to the gun range to learn proper understanding of guns -- my father taking mne to the gun range to learn proper understanding of guns.
7:41 pm
i also learned i had the right to bear arms. i was not home that night but i heard the 35 gun shots. i learned then, i and the first line of defense in my house. not just the police and certainly not this government. those who built on the wall and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked as construction and the other hand they held a weapon. every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side
7:42 pm
as the bill. i have learned enough, how to say i shall not be moved. i have learned how to say no new rules until you laern to and forced the ones we already have -- learn to enforce the ones we already have. in the name of jesus, i pray. [applause] >> thank you, pastorate. . we love the passion of our pastors. it is one reason we have hired mr. lani poindexter to move from california to head up this great work. i will turn up back over to mr. poindexter to engage the media on any questions.
7:43 pm
> >>i wanted to comment that what we are attempting to achieve is to give your cross -- to give you a cross section of black america of god fearing people who have a strong love for our constitution. we love our country, our government and our constitution and our freedom that gives us the right to be the first line of defense couldn't dizzying to the protection of our family -- line of defense in seeing to the protection of our family.
7:44 pm
>> to talk about the jim crow law in the background check -- can you talk about the jim crow law and the background check? >> the first gun laws in america started in virginia. from 1640, there has been a longtime history of rules against who. has the guns the first gun law was against the americans, africans, and chinese servant. it has grown every 30 years since then. there was an institution of the black code. it was instituted as a habitual thing for the african community that and you want to keep your child out of jail. if he had even a dog in your
7:45 pm
property, you could be pulled out by any citizen. the rules continue that way. mothers would say i cannot what my boys playing with guns. not because of the second amendment but to keep them alive. when you had everything against you, and we moved, it got even worse in the cities. all the laws were put exactly where the black people were. chicago and detroit became the styptic places because they wanted to keep us in -- became the strictest place is because they wanted to keep us in check. so when is a registration, it is a button for me. -- when you say registration, it is a button for me. >> any other questions > ?
7:46 pm
>> ticket having this great press conference -- thank you for having this great press conference. do you have a response to the colorado legislator who told women that if they may be raped, they should use pens or bodily fluids because they may shoot somebody by mistake if they had guns >? those legislators were democrats. >> it is the same party that enslaved and also instituted most of the jim crow laws we saw. on the question of women and arms, there is an insistent that people cannot be trained to shoot a gun.
7:47 pm
so there for women to take a second place in our society and wait for the police. we have had records of testimony that this is not a good idea because often and particularly in black communities, it takes the police a little longer to get there. so it is important women have learned how to secure and use an arm and protect their second amendment rights to bear arms. >> i cannot know i would be standing here today but on that comment -- i am the wife of pastor sandler. we are from nyc who just passed that law about not bearing arms. i am a gun owner.
7:48 pm
if i was attacked and possibly raped, i would not want to try to defend myself with some in bodily fluids. half the churches in newberg, i work with ex-offenders every day. most of the individuals i work with have gun charges. not one of those criminals, their gun charges have never been legally. they never legally owned those guns. they -- if i had an attacker come to me, -- i would not
7:49 pm
say i'm going to pee and that will stop you. i will take my gun and shoot them and that would stop them from assaulting me. and when i go home that evening, my husband would be comfortable knowing i did that. my husband takes into the range and that makes me comfortable -- takes me to the range and that makes him comfortable that i know how to use a weapon. >> kyl and the st. louis and i am a gun owner. -- i am from st. louis and i am a gun boehnowner. my daughter has a membership and she goes and shoots.
7:50 pm
i believe every mother out there, if you care about your daughter, don't depend on the government or police officers to protect your children. there are classic. i am also an nra member. i will tell you, it is important for women to ignore what everyone else is saying. think of by your own protection and that of your children. -- think of your own protection and that of your children. make sure you know how to shoot an aim and do it well. all the mike -- all of my daughters do. we are not going to wait for 911. i am a ccw and i carry a glock
7:51 pm
19. i also carry extra magazines. there are classes out there. you make sure -- we need to teach them about gun safety. especially our girls. my girls will know how to handle a gun before they know how to handle a car. >> as a physician, i too am a legal gun owner. as a physician, i continually hear in my head first do no harm. ui also know that means first do
7:52 pm
no harm to me. anyone that approaches me, i want them to know i do have a concealed carry permit. don't let the pink handle on my pistol fool you. i can shoot center mass with the best of them. [applause] >> any other questions? >> you mentioned but can you explain what you seem to be saying -- gun control has racist origins? could somebody elaborate on that? he gave a few sentences about that. >> we know that gun control
7:53 pm
laws have racist origins. i would like stacy to share. >> thank you. i am the president of the frederick douglass society. many of the speakers have approached that subject. one speaker talked about how the first gun laws were put into place to register black folks to make sure they would know who we were so we could not defend ourselves. if you look at the, right after the emancipation proclamation, what was going on in southern states, it was clear they wanted to disarm black people from defending themselves against the klan. there is a correlation between gun-control and black people control.
7:54 pm
i was not always this conservative. i grew up in the home of liberals. once upon a time, i used to do some things people woodcock criminal -- some people would call criminal. i grew up in the streets and i want you to know that the homes that criminals look for to commit crimes are the ones they assume there is not a gun owner did of the home. it was a man across the street from me. when i grew up, if the home owner had a gun, they would tell you they would kill you then call the police. everybody in my neighborhood knew you did not go to the men across the street because they
7:55 pm
had guns. those of use that were young and stupid, we knew to leave our community to do something like that. if you think for one minute that gun-control will do anything about reducing crime, you have just played into the hands of criminals and they are having a party and thanking the democrats for making it easier for them to take the lives of law-abiding citizens. >> any other questions? this will be the last question. >> i am an er doctor and spent five years in brooklyn at kings county hospital. we got on average 2-3 gun shots a days. . we got used to it. 1-2 people died a day from
7:56 pm
gunshots. when the shooting happened in the schoo,l, everybody was talking about it. i kept asking myself why aren't they talking about the daily killing in this community? most of the killing was illegal guns, gang related. why the media is not paying attention to 25-35 who die daily from gunshots? >> it is a diversion. they can't figure out the economy, they cannot create jobs. my twin boys are college-
7:57 pm
educated. they have to start their own business. their cohots can't -- cohorts can't find work coming out of school. as opposed to thinking businesslike and created jobs, they are focusing on shooting. indianapolis, everybody there has a gun and about 20% of them show their pistols on their hips. they walk around. you get a murder in indianapolis, it is front-page news. >> we are not ignoring some of the challenges confronting
7:58 pm
african american communities. if you look at the hands of liberals, you will see a lot of guilt of their for their bleeding heart approaches to black plight in this country. we have begun to see the collapse of the black family. during the 1960's when they started social engineering, 70% of children were raised in marital household so we did not see the escalated crime rate we see today. today, 7 out of 10 black children are raised in single households. on the issue of gun control, most of the black communities have been the most violent crime are gun controlled area. we at cure address some of the problems confronting black people. we do not want to neglect the importance of them.
7:59 pm
but when it comes to protecting the constitutional right of an individual american to bear arms, we want to make no mistake to say that other issues are being ignored and this one has taken precedent. this one is the protection of our first amendment rights and therefore need this consideration. when you talk about black unemployment and why we're seeing such violence and to the hardest hit communities, much of black unemployment today is directly at the hands of nancy pelosi when she have the gavel and the congress, she increased minimum wage laws. when you increase minimum wage, you increase black unemployment. and when you increase black unemployment, you increase black crime. >> i want to thank everyone

Politics Public Policy Today
CSPAN February 22, 2013 2:00pm-8:00pm EST


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 77, China 25, Washington 25, U.s. 23, United States 22, America 19, Usda 16, Virginia 15, Faa 14, California 12, North Korea 10, Lahood 9, Virginia Tech 8, New York 8, Obama 8, Korea 8, Tom Daschle 7, Georgia 6, Newport 6, D.c. 6
Network CSPAN
Duration 06:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 2/22/2013